Re: efficient workflow and/or excellent photo quality? (Was Camera Profiling Software, Now Aperture)
Re: efficient workflow and/or excellent photo quality? (Was Camera Profiling Software, Now Aperture)
- Subject: Re: efficient workflow and/or excellent photo quality? (Was Camera Profiling Software, Now Aperture)
- From: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:18:40 +0100
- Thread-topic: efficient workflow and/or excellent photo quality? (Was Camera Profiling Software, Now Aperture)
How much do you think Canon spends each year trying to make DPP better? How
much do you think they have to spend to make it a great product? They are
likely far better off outsourcing the image processing software and spending
those resources (or less) on ensuring that the third party software produces
the best results for their camera-generated files. It is completely
inefficient for them to try to provide (in Canon's case, for free) a product
that competes with all the third parties. They need to provide a core
product that works well so that people don't see the cost of, say, Aperture
as a mandatory part of the cost of the camera, but they need not provide
much more. They are much better off freezing development of the clunky DPP
(except for new camera support) and instead making that resource available
to Apple and others to ensure top quality from their products. Given the
consumer pays all costs this efficiency will benefit us all.
> From: Vidar Gundersen <email@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:59:35 +0200
> To: <email@hidden>
> Subject: efficient workflow and/or excellent photo quality? (Was Camera
> Profiling Software, Now Aperture)
>
> ===== Original message from edmund ronald | Wed, 26 Oct 2005:
>> Aperture has incredibly good workflow. It's the best app for handling
>> zillions of images at a time, and for versioning them. But unless
>> Canon and Nikon and Sony are willing to cooperate to a degree they
>> haven't done so far with Adobe, we won't see the best imagery from
>> anything except the manufacturer's converter.
>
> thank you for your support on my view.
> it seems to me that photographers will have to make a choice
> between time-saving workflow or excellent image quality.
>
> is this "quality loss" also evident when transforming
> proprietary RAW image files (CRW,NEF,..) into DNG?
>
>
> kind regards,
> Vidar Gundersen
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> com
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden