Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #28365 > unrolled thread

Aperture ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Aperture ? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 16:22 +0000
    Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 12:30 -0400
      Re: Aperture ? bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:02 +0100
        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 16:07 -0400
        Re: Aperture ? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-25 20:22 +0000
          Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-27 01:58 +0000
            Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 19:17 -0700
              Re: Aperture ? Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-27 08:27 +0100
                Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-27 01:25 -0700
              Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-27 07:34 -0700
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-28 05:14 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:25 +0000
                  Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-30 12:33 -0700
            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-29 20:46 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 18:53 -0400
                Re: Aperture ? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-01 10:31 +0000
        Re: Aperture ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 22:31 +0000
          Re: Aperture ? rcp27g@gmail.com - 2015-03-26 03:11 -0700
            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:02 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 15:29 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:57 -0400
                  Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:02 +0000
                    Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 12:23 -0400
                      Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:39 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:32 -0400
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 18:12 +0000
            Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 08:28 -0700
              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 15:57 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 12:00 -0400
                  Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:38 +0000
                    Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 10:04 -0700
                      Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 17:33 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:51 -0400
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 18:17 +0000
                            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
                              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:02 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 11:02 -0700
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 18:44 +0000
                            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
                              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:11 +0000
                    Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:32 -0400
                      Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 19:37 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:24 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 09:24 -0700
                  Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:50 +0000
              Re: Aperture ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-26 17:02 -0400
            Re: Aperture ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-27 00:05 +0000
            Re: Aperture ? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-26 20:24 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 19:00 -0700
                Re: Aperture ? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-26 22:34 -0400
                Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-27 04:02 +0000
                  Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 21:24 -0700
                    Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-27 14:15 +0000
              Re: Aperture ? Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-27 08:24 +0100
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
      Re: Aperture ? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 21:41 +0000
        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 17:53 -0400
        Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-25 22:14 +0000
        Re: Aperture ? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-25 18:37 -0400
        Re: Aperture ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-26 12:28 +1300
    Re: Aperture ? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-25 09:35 -0700
    Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-25 10:47 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#28365 — Aperture ?

I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28368

In article <meuncq$83m$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?

nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
matters anymore since it's been discontinued.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28372

On 2015-03-25 16:30:44 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <meuncq$83m$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
>> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?
> 
> nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
> matters anymore since it's been discontinued.

How do people feel about darktable?  I have a hard-core open-source 
friend who uses it, but I've never had a go myself.

Robin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28373

In article <mev47r$3ut$1@dont-email.me>, bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
> >> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?
> > 
> > nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
> > matters anymore since it's been discontinued.
> 
> How do people feel about darktable?  I have a hard-core open-source 
> friend who uses it, but I've never had a go myself.

not even close to lightroom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28374

On 2015-03-25, bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-25 16:30:44 +0000, nospam said:
>
>> In article <meuncq$83m$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
>>> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?
>> 
>> nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
>> matters anymore since it's been discontinued.
>
> How do people feel about darktable? 

I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.

You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 11th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my attitude,
                    that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28433

On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> How do people feel about darktable? 
>
> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>
> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>

For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop was far
better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider paying to use
Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.

-- 
We'll cross that bridge when we come back to it later.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28435

On 2015-03-27 01:58:50 +0000, tmo1138 said:

> On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> How do people feel about darktable?
>> 
>> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
>> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>> 
>> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>> 
> 
> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop was far
> better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider paying to use
> Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.

Ta! Dah!!
I think that applies to all of us allegedly being exploited by Adobe.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28440

On 2015-03-27 02:17:27 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2015-03-27 01:58:50 +0000, tmo1138 said:
> 
>> On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How do people feel about darktable?
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
>>> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>>> 
>>> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>>> 
>> 
>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop was far
>> better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider paying to use
>> Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
> 
> Ta! Dah!!
> I think that applies to all of us allegedly being exploited by Adobe.

Well, you are. And to justify yourselves, you blow the importance of 
Adobe up to mythical proportions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28442

On 2015-03-27 07:27:01 +0000, Me, myself and I said:

> On 2015-03-27 02:17:27 +0000, Savageduck said:
> 
>> On 2015-03-27 01:58:50 +0000, tmo1138 said:
>> 
>>> On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> How do people feel about darktable?
>>>> 
>>>> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
>>>> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>>>> 
>>>> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop was far
>>> better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider paying to use
>>> Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
>> 
>> Ta! Dah!!
>> I think that applies to all of us allegedly being exploited by Adobe.
> 
> Well, you are. And to justify yourselves, you blow the importance of 
> Adobe up to mythical proportions.

So far you are the first person to even mention "importance". As to 
"mythical proportions", that is news to me.

I am a hobbyist photographer who enjoys having a good tool set at hand 
fo my digit al darkroom. Adobe provides that for me in Lightroom & 
Photoshop with a CC subscription. I could get by with any of the other 
suitable applications, and I have some installed on my Mac. LR + PS 
suit me and what I produce just fine.

What sort of photography and/or graphics work are you engaged in, and 
what editing sofware do you use?
Also, other than the issue of that $9.99/month subscription, what 
benefits over the Adobe offerings of Lightroom & Photoshop, does the 
software you use give you?

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28445

On 3/26/15 7:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2015-03-27 01:58:50 +0000, tmo1138 said:
>
>> On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do people feel about darktable?
>>>
>>> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
>>> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>>>
>>> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>>>
>>
>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.
>> Photoshop was far
>> better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider
>> paying to use
>> Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
>
> Ta! Dah!!
> I think that applies to all of us allegedly being exploited by Adobe.
>
I can only speak for myself.  I'm sure that there are plenty of people 
who use GIMP and it's more than suitable for their needs.

I CAN say that I've used other programs that try to compete with 
Lightroom and I have yet to find a single program that holds a candle to 
lightroom.

-- 
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if 
they are genuine."
   - Abraham Lincoln

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28456

In article <mf3png$u5u$1@dont-email.me>, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org>
wrote:

> I can only speak for myself.  I'm sure that there are plenty of people 
> who use GIMP and it's more than suitable for their needs.

sure, but they also don't do very much and don't give a shit about the
low quality of the app or the slowness of it.

> I CAN say that I've used other programs that try to compete with 
> Lightroom and I have yet to find a single program that holds a candle to 
> lightroom.

exactly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28458

On 2015-03-27, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-27 01:58:50 +0000, tmo1138 said:
>
>> On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How do people feel about darktable?
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
>>> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>>> 
>>> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>>> 
>> 
>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop was far
>> better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider paying to use
>> Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
>
> Ta! Dah!!
> I think that applies to all of us allegedly being exploited by Adobe.
>

I think it boils down to choices.  Personally I have no problem with paying the
10 bucks a month.. but I can understand why others would. 

-- 
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
		-- Steven Wright

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28462

On 2015-03-28, tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-27, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-27 01:58:50 +0000, tmo1138 said:
>>
>>> On 2015-03-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> How do people feel about darktable?
>>>> 
>>>> I'd be interested to know, too, because I'm still looking for a decent
>>>> management tool. GIMP satisfies all my editing needs.
>>>> 
>>>> You could add Digikam to the list, too, if you're going Open Source.
>>> 
>>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop was far
>>> better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider paying to use
>>> Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
>>
>> Ta! Dah!!
>> I think that applies to all of us allegedly being exploited by Adobe.
>
> I think it boils down to choices.  Personally I have no problem with paying the
> 10 bucks a month.. but I can understand why others would. 

It's good that you can see both sides of the equation without being so
dedicated to one or the other that you dismiss those who choose one or
the other. Others here seem to be unable to achieve that position, for
whatever reason. Good on you. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28495

On Mar 28, 2015, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<cnnrvgFu5v1U4@mid.individual.net>):

> > 
> > I think it boils down to choices. Personally I have no problem with paying
> > the
> > 10 bucks a month.. but I can understand why others would.
> 
> It's good that you can see both sides of the equation without being so
> dedicated to one or the other that you dismiss those who choose one or
> the other. Others here seem to be unable to achieve that position, for
> whatever reason. Good on you. : )

Key to getting along - respecting that people will simply not always agree on 
things.Respect that.. and everything else sort works itself out.



--
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they 
are genuine."
- Abraham Lincoln

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28455

In article <slrnmh9ecd.ch9.tmo1138@davidjr-macpro.local>, tmo1138
<tmo1138@tmo1138.com> wrote:

> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop 
> was far better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider 
> paying to use Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.

free ends up costing more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28484

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnmh9ecd.ch9.tmo1138@davidjr-macpro.local>, tmo1138
> <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> wrote:
> 
>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop 
>> was far better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider 
>> paying to use Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
> 
> free ends up costing more.

That kind of statement simply begs for rebuttal.  Free that does what you
want done costs mote than what?  Infinitesimally few statements about
something having no exceptions have ever been true as so stated 8-)
-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28486

In article <mf9obo$e0r$2@dont-email.me>,
 Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> That kind of statement simply begs for rebuttal.  Free that does what you
> want done costs mote than what?  Infinitesimally few statements about
> something having no exceptions have ever been true as so stated 8-)

Yeah, given that most of the web runs on Apache servers. Which are free. 
HTML5 has some neat features too, and it's free.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28500

On 2015-03-29, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnmh9ecd.ch9.tmo1138@davidjr-macpro.local>, tmo1138
>> <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> For what I do I tried the same things in GIMP and Photoshop.  Photoshop 
>>> was far better at the exact same tasks.  So much so that I don't consider 
>>> paying to use Photoshop (or Lightroom) a wasted expense.
>> 
>> free ends up costing more.
>
> That kind of statement simply begs for rebuttal. 

Naah. It needs no rebuttal.  It just marks the poster down as a bigoted
moron who should be killfiled and forgotten.

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 18th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28382

Okay, so one time? In band camp? bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> was all, like:
> On 2015-03-25 16:30:44 +0000, nospam said:

>> In article <meuncq$83m$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
>>> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?
>> 
>> nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
>> matters anymore since it's been discontinued.

> How do people feel about darktable?  I have a hard-core open-source 
> friend who uses it, but I've never had a go myself.

Like most Free software clones of other packages it is designed for
religious zealots who have a moral objection to using the source of the
clone. That means that it, like the others, makes many compromises
because it's user-base is unwilling to switch to the better software.

Darktable is a pale and distant imitation of Lightroom. Even I would
never use it willingly, and I really do very little with photos.

There is an OS X specific build which I haven't tried, and it costs
nothing, so you can certainly look at it. I was not impressed with it in
Ubuntu enough to have any desire to look at it in OS X.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
All he [Vimes] knew was that you couldn't hope to try for the big stuff,
like world peace and happiness, but you might just about be able to
achieve some tiny deed that'd make the world, in a small way, a better
place. Like shooting someone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28396

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 23:31:54 UTC+1, Lewis  wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> was all, like:
> > On 2015-03-25 16:30:44 +0000, nospam said:
> 
> >> In article <meuncq$83m$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> >> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
> >>> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?
> >> 
> >> nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
> >> matters anymore since it's been discontinued.
> 
> > How do people feel about darktable?  I have a hard-core open-source 
> > friend who uses it, but I've never had a go myself.
> 
> Like most Free software clones of other packages it is designed for
> religious zealots who have a moral objection to using the source of the
> clone. That means that it, like the others, makes many compromises
> because it's user-base is unwilling to switch to the better software.

While I wouldn't use quite such strong language, that description fits the friend in question who uses it.  While this description fits some open source projects, there are others that are sufficiently good that there is no particular need to pay good money for closed source alternatives (for example nobody pays money for a closed source web browser or email client anymore because the open source ones are good enough).  Without having the time or expertise to try this particular option, I was just interested in which of the two camps it falls into.

> Darktable is a pale and distant imitation of Lightroom. Even I would
> never use it willingly, and I really do very little with photos.

I personally am very wary of the moves Adobe is making to essentially make its creative suite software into software you rent rather than buy.

Robin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web