🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff ... didn't I see your name--and face-- rented on a page sponsored by one of those camera manufacturers logos? :-D

      It's deffinately different, but define "BETTER".




If there's anything this forum has encouraged, it's a belief that iit would be "better" to access the hidden data and metatags most camera manufacturers don't openly share with third party software vendors. The perception remains that critical data needs to be wrestled from those manufacturers gnarly little fists--byte by byte.

Scottie ... I'm not paid by Adobe--but I have been using their software for a long, long time. Without exception, the Photoshop team has done a remarkable, if not historic, job of transitioning the darkroom from wet to digital fidelity.* ACR is only part of a fully integrated digital imaging system--as much as Canon or Nikon are fully integrated camera systems. Other manufacturers may have one or two sweet spots, but they don't remain sweetest for very long.

I use Canon's, Nikon's and Adobe's RAW processing software. Sometimes I get a better image from the camera manufacturers software, but in a majority of cases, and especially under heavy workflow conditions-- for my purposes Adobe is the BETTER of the three. It always has been, and I see no reason that will change. Each new version supercedes the previous definition of "better".

For my money, Adobe's track record of innovation, customer support, and reasonable cost is "better" than all the contenders there ever were. This is my unpaid testimonial to the Photoshop system and it's ACR component.

* as a footnote and IMHO, the only other noteworthy contender in this transitioning process was a vendor called Silicon Beach Software ... which, unfortunately, long ago rolled off into the digital bit bucket. I hope history places them right beside Adobe.