samn

<p>Rich, I shot a 2 day wedding with the Maxxum 7 this summer. Even though it was a successful shoot the amount of work involved was just too much. I wouldn't do a shoot of that magnitude again with film. I should have rented an A700. Even though I took test shots before hand there were many flash mistakes that if I had of had reference in the camera would have been resolved. How about a rental for a backup?</p>

<p>Paul, in ACD Pro 3 every file format that is available in PRO is treated like a RAW image. The same controls in develop and edit are available whether it is a RAW image or a JPEG. If I scan TIF, BMP or JPG the original scan is always available after editing. If you save an edited file under another name, the original edited file is always available until you re save it under the edited files name. It is quite different looking than Photoshop and has great tonal and color controls.</p>

<p>Hi Paul,<br>

Since you asked, you really must give ACD Pro 3.0 a look. I know everyone tries to justify their preferences, but it is a superb editor + management system. Loss less editing in most all common formats i.e., jpeg, tiff, raw and <strong>two</strong> editing platforms. Superb interface in both editing and management interfaces plus a knockout online module built in to show off or sell your images at no extra charge. I've been beta'ing it for a year now. Exceptional. I don't know about the programs you have tried, so I don't have a comparison but I beta'ed Lightroom a couple of years ago and it left me cold. I do use Photoshop in conjunction with ACD though.</p>

<p>Your Northern Harrier image is superb. Here are a couple of mine from Jan. First is a B&W conversion in ACD Pro 3.0</p><div></div>

<p>Warren, no I don't think that P/N has lost anything, its just that times change. I had a few of those huge ratings/comments photos too way back when. By today's standards they were probably not deserved. We were operating in a really different era where there were just not as many shooters and we did not have the advanced capabilities offered by current cameras and software. What I see now is just as much enthusiasm, better capabilities and more people taking the hobby/profession seriously. But the downside to that is that there are just too many photographs to assimilate resulting in the low views/ratings/comments.</p>

<p>Speaking of enhancing/manipulation, I did have (to me) an interesting experience lately. I took what I thought were my very best images that included abstract, street and people shots, landscapes, several different types of photographic art and manipulations, architectural and some miscellaneous other shots and posted them on another web site. This site runs recently posted across their home page and it has quite a bit of traffic. It was interesting to see what images got the most views and ratings. All of the most popular and highly rated were abstract or heavily manipulated hi color images. Similar to the same ratings and views from P/N members.</p>

<p>So I guess it showed me two things. That what you get here as far a views and ratings is pretty accurate and secondly don't let others influence your work by their negative opinions on enhanced or manipulated photography. Do as you wish with <strong>your </strong> work.</p>