Hi Don, I'm not sure you'll see much, if any, difference in the end result, but I'm just now starting to explore the possibilities and pitfalls of converting RAW files, so it's very possible I'm talking through my hat ...
If I were you, I'd not pay for the upgrade to PS CS until you're sure you'll need it (unless you can get it very inexpensively). If you've a fast enough connection, download the trial edition from Adobe and see how it works for you. Apart from the various new features and frills that CS offers, it's also quite memory intensive, and if your machine isn't up to it, you may find the program slow and cumbersome to use. I'm using a very current WinXP machine with 2gigs of fast memory, a fast CPU, two very fast and large hard drives + an external drive, and have plenty of room for scratch disks, and still I get frustrated when running certain routines. The trial software is complete in every way as far as I can tell, so it should give you a good sense of whether it'll do the job you want done. Shel > From: Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am using the Pentax software and PS 7.01 plug-in to convert the > RAW files, perhaps that is a big part of my problem. > I'll pick up the CS upgrade today and see how it goes. > I've seen some excellent examples of images from the D taken by > you folks and was really wondering why mine were so inferior. > Is it simply the algorithms used in the CS convertor that > result in a superior end result?
