> This compares C1 with ACR 1 - which is a bit out of date. I use both. In my experience:
* ACR handles high-ISO noise far better than C1. At 800 and 1600 ISO my D70 pictures are perfectly usable via ACR whereas C1 produces pointillism. Phase One need to look hard at their NR algorithms. * ACR offers the built-in ability to get rid of chromatic aberration, very handy when you've shot architecture with the Nikon 12-14 and have loads of fringing at the sides of the image. Images processed via C1 require further processing in PSCS to deal with this. On the other hand... * C1 gives great-looking colour and sharpness very easily. The built-in film curves are great. The white balance tools are very quick and intuitable. The images have punch and refinement. At 200 ISO. * The batch processing functions are peerless. You can define as many output formats as you like, in whatever colour spaces you choose, with or without watermarks of your choice, in named subfolders, and C1 will produce them all, simultaneously, as a background task. C1 allows me to do bulk jobs in about a quarter of the time it took me in PSCS. Where I've shot a high-ISO image or one which needs de-fringing I'll often prepare the image to my liking in C1 then open it in PSCS, open the original RAW in ACR, deal with the noise or fringing, tweak it until it looks a bit like the C1 TIFF, then use Match Colour to match the new import with the C1 TIFF. It usually gets pretty close and gives me the best of both worlds. Best regards Paul Ellis Mamatus Limited | http://www.mamatus.com Photography - Interactive Imaging - Apple Macintosh consultancy Tel +44 20 8341 9788 Mobile +44 7930 312554 Member of The Association of Photographers =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
