Re: OT: Photoshop CS

[Paul Stenquist]

The only reason I felt that I had to have Photoshop CS was the RAW 
converter. After using it for a couple of months, I could never go back 
to the Pentax software. In terms of fine tuning the image before 
conversion and the quality of the results, there is simply no 
comparison. For an *ist D photographer PhotoShop Cs is a must have.
Paul
On May 16, 2004, at 2:28 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:

It used to be that the cost of photoshop was a barrier for me, it now
appears that not only is money an issue, but the bloatware that
photoshop has become, is another barrier for me.  Sounds like Adobe
have followed Microsoft's lead (perhaps even using the latest MS
tools) in creating slower, fatter versions of their software.  I'm not
ready to spend even more money to up my memory along with the cost of
the software.  So far, PictureWindow Pro is adequate - only costs $90
and runs just fine in 512MB.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Saturday, May 15, 2004, 11:05:15 PM, you wrote:
SB> Working with 16-bit color files, adding a few layers and doing some
SB> retouching, CS will sometimes use all available memory,  However, 
I've not
SB> had it installed for more than 24-hours, and may be missing a few
SB> memory-saving options in the way it's set up.  However, it is 
slower than
SB> PS7 on my setup, and that's obvious ... and disappointing.

SB> Shel Belinkoff

[Original Message]
From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 5/15/2004 10:40:03 PM
Subject: RE: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:19:07 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
2gb ...
For the work I do, on the workflow I use, if it hits the scratch disk
with 2GB of memory, it's a piece of crap.  I don't know if it does or
not, since I don't have either CS or 2GB of memory.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ