Re: Aperture
Re: Aperture
- Subject: Re: Aperture
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:56:53 EDT
In a message dated 10/28/05 8:03:34 AM, email@hidden writes:
I found the comments re price point highly amusing. Like any professional
photographer is going to say "I now have Aperture and so I don't need Adobe
PS". Yeah right! Aperture has a long way to go before that happens. I
simply don't believe the comment that they have incorporated 90% of the PS
tools pro photographers use. Even if they did, then they'd still have to
have PS for the other 10%. Sorry but the pricing of Aperture needs to be
compared with the cost of other converters without the cost of PS.
Yes, there's a rather mixed message on needing Photoshop, but not needing to buy Photoshop... Aperature certainly won't do 90% of what I use Photoshop/Camera Raw for, but then I'm not a typical user. This is a raw convertor/workflow tool, not a Photoshop replacement; a user that chooses to embrace Aperture for conversion and workflow will have to justify the cost, in addition to Photoshop, based on convenience, efficiency, and any killer tools that Aperture may offer.
If nothing else, this will be a wakeup call to Adobe for what Bridge/Camera Raw needs to offer in future versions.
C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Inc.
email@hidden
www.colorvision.com
_______________________________________________
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