Dear Jeff, I realise that you are defending what is effectively 'your' product, but I think the statements below a little harsh in public?
I have used all the RAW software and tested it extensively to suit my own purposes and I have to say that my conclusions tie with those of Don Lashier and many of the other comparisons I have seen. Christian Schneider is another who may not be a scientist, but he seems to have taken a great deal of trouble to make the comparisons as objective as possible (http://www.photographics.at/Canon_Phaseone/1ds_phaseone.html) Adobe RAW converter is a value for money solution for many photographers who are experimenting with RAW for the first time. It has great potential, especially if the much needed improvements are made to Photoshop as well. BUT, until brand specific flavours of the product are developed or further optimizations made, I feel it unrealistic to claim it be best or to knock the opposition in such a way as has been done here. No one ever expects perfection in version 1 of any software, so roll on version 2. Regards, Nick WB. > The fact that anybody can post anything on the web and be considered a > "publisher" does NOT mean that the people who do so are > following any sort > of journalistic or scientific principles. > > I'm not saying anything other than don't suspend your own > judgement just > because somebody puts up a "comparison". > > As far as Mr. Lashier's tests, I've duplicated his tests and found his > methods were faulty and his conclusions incorrect. He then made some > modifications to his web site to correct his methodology but > his conclusions > are still suspect. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
