On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> That's still wrong: Lightroom isn't anything as crude as a piledriver. No >> one would reasonably expect to be able to use a piledriver for tapping >> little tacks. A reasonable photographer *would* like to be able to use a >> tool whose desirable features are raw conversion and image optimization >> for... just raw conversion and image optimization. > > > You still don't get it. > > if all you wanted was RAW conversion, use Camera Raw. Lightroom was not > designed for that kind of use. It was designed for end-to-end image > management. That's what makes it efficient. > > Godfrey >
My point exactly. Apart from the efficiency part (it's not more efficient in some cases, it is in others) I really do wish that Adobe would release a stand-alone RAW conversion utility. Either sell Bridge/ACR alone or sell a LR Elements with no Library. As it stands I have to pay more for standalone RAW conversion than I would for LR. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
