"Winsor Crosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] opined:
"That is one bunch of ugly photos, before and after."
and
"My other reaction was the question, "Who is this for?" If by some
momentary lapse, mini-stroke, or fainting spell someone should produce one
of the before pictures, most, on this list, would probably just toss it as
they went through the pictures in their hospital bed. Would you have really
pushed the shutter button with 25 or 26 in your viewfinder?"
and
"Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] replied:
"No I would not have taken picture 25/26. . . .
If you only ever take studio shots then you shouldn't ever need something
like this, but I am sure most other people could find images that could be
improved/rescued by a toned down version of this software."
Preston adds:
I'm not a professional photographer, and I have lots of images like the
BEFORE shots. To be able to go from BEFORE to AFTER simply and easily (both
big assumptions) would be very attractive to me. (Though it looks like the
AFTER images have been a fair amount over-sharpened, the improvements in
shadow densities are impressive.)
(I remember an article in Scientific American 15 to 20 years ago about the
improvement of photographic images (I think they were alluding to spy
satellite images) to eliminate/reduce blur due to camera motion and lens
focus (or lack thereof). I've been meaning to go to the library to look the
article up to see if the results were as impressive as I remember them.)
It may well be that Professional Photographers will have little use for a
product like this. I suspect that ten years ago they felt they had little
use for a program like Photoshop. I guess time will tell.
And, Steve, don't feel you need to be defensive of this product/technology.
I, for one, am very impressed.
Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never happened---Mark
Twain
