Canon vs Nikon - Which One

Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost,
functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software.
Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

Photshop Elements is quite affordable ( $100) and more that powerful
enough for most amateurs. (And amateur being serious photographers).
The only reason I got CS3 was for much better print color control.

You forgot adjustment layers and standard layers.

tricky to learn (Gimp), or

And a PITA in a 16bit/color world as some strains of GIMP are fully 16
b/c but this is not in all the filters; or the v. with all kinds of
filters don't have 16 b/c. Last v. of GIMP I tried did not have real
time feedback while using the unsharp mask, making that pre-print
critical operation extremely tedious. Not sure if that has been
addressed or in which 'strain' of GIMP, but suffice it to say that
I'll not revisit GIMP for a long time...

operationally clumsy (Gimp, Picasa). Canon's best product (Digital Photo
Professional) is easy to use, more capable than one might expect, and
free
with any EOS camera. I know nothing abut Nikon's competing products,
except
that I've read that they charge upwards of $100 for their best one.

IMNHO, camera co's are great at making cameras. Graphic co's are
great at making image processing s/w; and Adobe are king of that
particular heap.

I've just discovered, for example, that Nikon's scanning s/w for the
Nikon 9000 scanner does not function well on the Mac. Cannot perform
film strip offsets with reliability or repeatability. So, scanning
with the WinXP machine and transferring to the Mac for photoshop. I
guess I'll have to DL VueScan for the Mac... (3rd party scan s/w) as
Nikon can't get this right... (yes, the s/w is up to date with DL's
from Nikon). Just hope my WinXP license for VueScan is valid on the Mac.

Many of the 3rd-party products go beyond what the camera manufacturers
provide, of course. But if you're reasonably careful with exposure and
composition, you may find that you rarely need the added
functionality. Hence
the quality of the manufacturer-supplied software may well matter to
you.

Do not concur. See above.

measekite boyhowdy wrote:


nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software. Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),


photoshop is only expensive if one buys the full version, which is
generally overkill for most people. photoshop elements uses the same
adobe camera raw engine and is more than adequate for the average user.


It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.

Complete nonsense. Few people need layers in order to make valuable
adjustments to their photos.

--
Ray Fischer

In article , measekite
wrote:

I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality,
and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software.
Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

photoshop is only expensive if one buys the full version, which is
generally overkill for most people. photoshop elements uses the same
adobe camera raw engine and is more than adequate for the average user.

It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.

photoshop elements most definitely supports adjustment and standard
layers.

In article , measekite
wrote:

I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost,
functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software.
Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

Photshop Elements is quite affordable ( $100) and more that powerful
enough for most amateurs. (And amateur being serious photographers).
The only reason I got CS3 was for much better print color control.

You forgot adjustment layers and standard layers.

no he didn't; elements has both.

On 2008-09-01, nospam wrote:
In article , measekite

It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.

photoshop elements most definitely supports adjustment and standard
layers.

Does it have curve adjustments yet? For me that's always been the
inexplicable omission.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:58:53 -0700, measekite
wrote:



Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost,
functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software.
Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

Photshop Elements is quite affordable ( $100) and more that powerful
enough for most amateurs. (And amateur being serious photographers).
The only reason I got CS3 was for much better print color control.

You forgot adjustment layers and standard layers.


I have both Photoshop 7.0 and Elements 5.0. Elements most definitely
allows both adjustment layers and standard layers. What is lacks is
Layer Mask and Curves. I'll use Elements for simple tweaks, and PS
7.0 for more extensive modifications. Even some of the projects I do
in PS 7.0 could be done in Elements 5.0, but I'm so used to working
with PS 7.0 that I use it out of habit.

I tried the evaluation download of Elements 6.0, but didn't see
anything there that justified the expense of upgrading. Nothing wrong
with it; just nothing I needed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Ray Fischer wrote:
measekite boyhowdy wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:



I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software. Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),


photoshop is only expensive if one buys the full version, which is
generally overkill for most people. photoshop elements uses the same
adobe camera raw engine and is more than adequate for the average user.


It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.


Complete nonsense. Few people need layers in order to make valuable
adjustments to their photos.


To be able to go back and do a tweak or turn changes on and off without
saving multiple versions layers are very important.

nospam wrote:
In article , measekite
wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality,
and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software.
Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

photoshop is only expensive if one buys the full version, which is
generally overkill for most people. photoshop elements uses the same
adobe camera raw engine and is more than adequate for the average user.

It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.


photoshop elements most definitely supports adjustment and standard
layers.


What version?

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:58:53 -0700, measekite
wrote:


Alan Browne wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost,
functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software.
Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

Photshop Elements is quite affordable ( $100) and more that powerful
enough for most amateurs. (And amateur being serious photographers).
The only reason I got CS3 was for much better print color control.

You forgot adjustment layers and standard layers.


I have both Photoshop 7.0 and Elements 5.0. Elements most definitely
allows both adjustment layers and standard layers. What is lacks is
Layer Mask and Curves. I'll use Elements for simple tweaks, and PS
7.0 for more extensive modifications. Even some of the projects I do
in PS 7.0 could be done in Elements 5.0, but I'm so used to working
with PS 7.0 that I use it out of habit.

I tried the evaluation download of Elements 6.0, but didn't see
anything there that justified the expense of upgrading. Nothing wrong
with it; just nothing I needed.


Gimp is better than Elements and not as good as PS but it does the job
and you can buy a lens with the savings.

In article , measekite
wrote:

It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.

photoshop elements most definitely supports adjustment and standard
layers.

What version?

current version of course. and it's been in elements for a *long* time.