At 6:52 PM -0800 11/3/06, Herschel Mair wrote:
Emily, Why do you shoot RAW if you don't want to process the files?
Or is it just that you don't want to process them in Photoshop
specifically?
Photoshop is bloatware at this point. I'm a photographer, not a
graphic artist or watercolorist or any of those things. Adobe should
break PS up and put most of it in Illustrator. Text is the only tool
in Photoshop that is alien to a darkroom that I frequently use. If I
could dodge, burn, level, crop, desaturate, sepia tone, and stamp out
dirt in the RAW converter, I wouldn't need Photoshop at all. If
Adobe palmed all that other stuff off on some other software, it
could make ACR do the entire portfolio of tasks that many
photographers need.
I shoot RAW so I can process my files, but I do as much of that as
possible in the RAW converter. If what I've been able to do in the
RAW converter interprets the image according to my notion of how it
should be I don't see why I need to use Photoshop simply to save the
files.
Now, maybe when I have a faster computer with more RAM the new save
procedure in Bridge will be less obnoxious to me, but right now I
have a nice set of save actions which achieve exactly the results I
need with minimal attention while they're running. So I'm sticking
with PS CS, even though I now have it and CS2 on the computer.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
