I've just finished a comparison for skin tones with 4 RAW software converters :

- Capture NX
- Adobe Lightroom 2
- Capture One 5
- DXO Optics 6

The result (comparison) is available here :
Comparison of 4 RAW converters regarding skin tones

Enjoy !

Jean-Romain.

[Yes, though I should shut up or you'll never consent to sneaking pics of my sons into some fleeting background on Wonder Pets... --J.]

[See, and you didn't even have to ask your dad to write the script. :-) --J.]

The icing on the cake is that if you happen to have a "Suite", instead of a single program (i.e. CS3 Web Suite vs just Photoshop CS3), Adobe WILL NOT LET YOU UPGRADE JUST PHOTOSHOP TO CS4. YOU MUST UPGRADE THE WHOLE SUITE! I originally had just Photoshop and Dreamweaver (from Macromedia) as well as Freehand - never liked illustrator. After Adobe bought Macromedia somewhere along the way there was some kind of deal, around about CS2 I think, that made it somewhat attractive to upgrade to the Web Suite as opposed to just upgrading Photoshop, which I did. At this point in time, I really don't use anything but Photoshop. But Adobe won't let me upgrade just Photoshop - I have to upgrade the whole suite for $600. Now that is the definition of chutzpah.

I have installed Snow Leopard, and CS3 does seem to work without any problems, so far. I installed SL on an external drive and booted from there to test all my software before doing the upgrade on my MacBook Pro itself. So, for the moment, I'm Okay.

However, I also use Aperture and find that Aperture and NIK plugins suffice for the most part for my photography work. While they certainly don't do everything that Photoshop does, the missing things I can live without if I have to.

So unless Adobe offers some kind of economical upgrade path to Photoshop CS4, or the whole suite for that matter, and changes their current business model of absolute disdain for their customer base, it's good bye Adobe for me as far as any more upgrades are concerned.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB Adobe. You are no longer the only choice around.

In the old days I could change my image "look" by changing the film I loaded, but today I can do that after the fact by adjusting my RAW processing. RAW gives me the ability to not only be the photographer, but also the lab tech that use to handle all my C-41 and E6.

Working with JPEGs as your original file is the digital equivalent to scanning a WalMart print. No pro would scan a copy of the original (the printed image), we all scan the original image (the negative or transparency). And I say WalMart because none of the camera manufacturers work to create a "pro" quality image from their JPEG processing since they know that no pro would ever trust their cookie cutter processing delivered to them in a format that is very lossy.

I'm bashing the Adobe team over and over again whenever i'm in the middle of a project finding out the little quirks in the apps that drive me mad at 5 AM.

Now it's Christmas time and time for New Year resolutions like (hopelessly) throwing away bad habits.

My idea (wish) for reducing rants: Adobe should make the interface/checkbox/options/command/whatever source code open source to the community and everyone can modify "their software" as they want.

How about that John.

At least i would use it to modify After Effects CS3 and it's DAMN! behaviour cutting off characters from file names in the browswer AND timeline!!

Oh, it's me ranting again ... but rightly I think.

1. With this GPU technology I take it that you will get the enhanced capabilities for any AVCHD footage? Or will it be supported only from specific cameras or makers?

2. I take it right now that a specific video card brand and certain models will be needed and that not just any video card with a good (say Photoshop CS4 supported) GPU will work?

[That's correct, but note that this doesn't apply to Photoshop. --J.]

Robert