RAW photography

[BJ]

Divernet | DIVER Tests | PHOTO SOFTWARE ADOBE CS3 RAW CONVERTER

[DannyB]

Originally Posted by BJ

Divernet | DIVER Tests | PHOTO SOFTWARE ADOBE CS3 RAW CONVERTER

Nice article.

Danny

[Cussy]

I just spotted in the conclusion this nice little one:

SPECS
ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS3-RAW CONVERTER
PRICE From £570, upgrade from £163
COMPATIBILITY PC or Mac (OSX v.10.4.8) with at least 512Gb of RAM
CONTACT Adobe
DIVER GUIDE

Now I know full well CS3 is memory hungry, but 512Gb as a minimum!!!!!

[triplefin]

It would be interesting if John now did a review of Lightroom (is that what its called?). A lot of people are finding this a much better option for RAW files. There have recently been quite a few questions about it both on here and Digigreen. Mind you if John is used to using PS he may come down on the side of that as we tend to like what we are used to. On the other hand I am sure he is used to trying to write objective reviews
How about it then Mr B? I certainly would be interested in hearing from someone who has spent sometime using both.

[Mick F]

That would be interesting. Although LR uses the same ACR engine as CS3, so the conversion results wouldn't be any different, but I find I use Photoshop less and less now.

[BJ]

Adobe Lightroom is aimed at photographers who do shoots that end up with lots of similar frames such as advertising and fashion photographers. It's good for processing large numbers of similar pictures. It is complimentary to Adobe CS3. It uses the same RAW converter in a simplified form.

[Mick F]

I find it a good bit more flexible than that. Everything you can do in ACR, you can do in Lightroom and more. Have you had a look at it since 1.3 came out? Seriously, you may be pleasantly surprised.

I now have over 15,000 photo's imported and performance is fine (although I do use the LR database rather than sidecar files) It also imports any Bridge .xmp files so all the keywords are preserved, as well as any ACR settings done. I can do everything from generate web gallerys for previews to proof and final printing, all within LR.

I'd better stop before people think I have shares in Adobe but it is worth a second look.

[buchhawk]

Originally Posted by Mick F

I find it a good bit more flexible than that. Everything you can do in ACR, you can do in Lightroom and more. Have you had a look at it since 1.3 came out? Seriously, you may be pleasantly surprised.

I now have over 15,000 photo's imported and performance is fine (although I do use the LR database rather than sidecar files) It also imports any Bridge .xmp files so all the keywords are preserved, as well as any ACR settings done. I can do everything from generate web gallerys for previews to proof and final printing, all within LR.

I'd better stop before people think I have shares in Adobe but it is worth a second look.

I think you may have to explain all that over a few

Ken

[triplefin]

Originally Posted by buchhawk

I think you may have to explain all that over a few

Ken

thank you .....glad I'm not the only one, and I class you as a 'proper' photographer!
perhaps you could put the translation up when you have spoken to him

[CotoChris]

One big difference between CS3 and Lightroom is the price. A huge difference where as not everyone can afford the CS3 and yet Lightroom does most of the work that most people require for some £160.
To leave out Lightroom is a big lapse on the reporters part, either ignorance or whatever.