Hello Brendan, That is one of the reasons (price is another) that I have been using Picture Window Pro. It was designed by a photographer for photographers. The style is much more in harmony with how you think. You might want to download a trial and see what you think.
http://dl-c.com/content/view/12/26/ -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, April 13, 2007, 9:42:29 PM, you wrote: BM> Good point, Mark. BM> In fact, I could really care less about it except that BM> I've had some rejections because of it. Now, are the BM> inspectors looking past 100%? I have no idea, but BM> probably so. BM> For my own peace of mind, I'm trying to get to the BM> bottom of something that will, in the end, make me a BM> more competent "fixer" of images, as opposed to let's BM> say, a better photographer. It is, unfortunately, part BM> and parcel of the digital capture world in which we BM> wish to function. BM> To go little further with this, I have been reading a BM> few Photoshop books and visiting forums recently and BM> I've come away with the feeling that Photoshop, as BM> great and wonderful a tool as it is, is also the bane BM> of my existence. It is not really a photographer's BM> tool; it is a designers tool. Probably 80% of what PS BM> can do I want absolutely no part of. I cringe at even BM> needing to learn the 20% I MUST learn. But forge ahead BM> I will. BM> So, your point is very well received. I would so much BM> rather be out shooting. But if I want to move forward BM> with my images I have to dig a bit deeper into some of BM> the mundane issues that I would normally ignore with BM> pleasure. BM> -Brendan BM> --- Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Brendan's post and the response bring up an >> interesting issue that seems to >> increasingly dominate the digital photography >> world--pixel peeping and >> hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% >> and tear apart an image, >> but how much of the defects we observe will actually >> show up in real world >> applications? >> >> For example, the DPReview Pentax SLR forum has had >> several VPN (vertical >> pattern noise) threads lately. Basically, if you >> crank the ISO way up, >> shoot in very low light, then amplify the shadow >> areas in Photoshop you'll >> see patterns in the noise. My *ist-Ds does it, but >> I never noticed it until >> I went looking for it. My ultimate conclusion is, >> "So what?" It's like the >> old joke where the patient says, "Doctor, it hurts >> when I do XXXX," and the >> doctor responds, "So don't do XXXX". >> >> I know that blooming and CA can be pretty obvious in >> certain situations >> (e.g., backlit tree branches in winter). In less >> contrasty cases, you may >> be able to find it if you go looking for it. If >> it's not obtrusive, >> however, why worry so much about it? >> >> Just a thought.... >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> BM> __________________________________________________ BM> Do You Yahoo!? BM> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around BM> http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
