The problem is that you are not letting US know that it was Guillermo's quote, and you are not giving some context to the quote. What is the use of directly transposing someones words to another thread without at least some discussion about why you are doing it?
As for the mess, it would be bad enough if it was JUST three different threads. But now we have cross-referencing going on in all the threads, and no idea which is the authorative thread to follow. I hope this thread gets the chop!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Problem is that the subject of this thread is interdisciplinary. Well, that’s how it is with many aspects of digital imaging. And I assume that’s why the threadopener placed or linked his contribution in different sub-forums. Actually I do not have a problem with this, particularly considering that this forum likes to divide itself in more and more sub-forums.
As for the convention of providing a quote. Well, we can discuss about this. Placing the text in special marks (>><<) plus providing the link, was certainly a brief way to do so. But again, if one is willing to follow the link, it provides the original context, gives the author and in this case the confirmation that GLuijk was properly informed that his words were “used” here.
Referring to the content, I’d still see it as an excellent fit.
Raw converter like to add more and more functions, thus to mimic Photoshop. While every of such stepwise additions is greatly praised, and while we are taught to render the print (perhaps to feel like Ansel Adams), most added tools have essentially not a lot to do with Raw conversion in the sense of “color reconstruction”.
This whole approach is certainly fine for a stand-alone application such as Lightroom. However, with ACR there would be (or have been) the chance for a smarter integration of both worlds i.e. Raw conversion and Photoshop. Leaving the “creative processing” to Photoshop, rather than trying to add and (re)invent tool by tool for ACR.
In other words, let the Raw converter (ACR) do what it needs to do, and better add Clarity or Vibrance to Photoshop. Curves, Saturation, etc. are already there if I remember correctly.
If the native ‘raw’ functions in a converter were properly communicated and separated, as claimed by the threadopener, it might be easier to follow such pathway - at least as an alternative option. Problem is, it doesn’t seem to fit very well in the “rendering the print” philosophy (perhaps to feel like Ansel Adams) which I consider to be more a marketing approach.
IMO.
& Cheers!
Peter
--
