Quote:
Originally Posted by silkstone
From a personal perspective, I've not used Photoshop since version 3 and have never felt deprived - just a little richer.  |
Each to their own and I wholeheartedly agree that for many users there are products out there that will do a better job for them for less money. For me I am fairly confident I am a good bit richer BECAUSE I use Photoshop. I actually have Bibble pro on my Linux Box and it's really good for what it is but it's not in the same league as Photoshop. I have Capture NX and I can get very good results very quickly with it (on an uber spec machine) but if I take longer then I get better results from PS. I also use DxO and love it for some shots but I use it alongside PS.
Why would 2 images processed by the same person who claims one product is superior be in any way objective. Surely a better test would be to send the same raw file to a number of experts to process in their chosen software. Professional Image Maker magazine did this with a wedding shoot and then blind tested it; the photoshop images were streets ahead. It's not like they don't have software shootouts and reviews frequently in the magazines, all the ones I have seen never seem to doubt PS is the best in terms of quality.
Adobe needs competition I agree. I'd love to have a better product for less. But equally the imaging sector like all businesses needs a heavy hitter. For example if it were not for Adobe then you'd be stuck with the Camera Mfrs own Raw conversion software as both Canon and Nikon tried to keep this in house. It was only because Adobe used their clout that they reluctantly agreed to make some of the specs available to third parties.