Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pretzel" data-source="post: 186055" data-attributes="member: 12257">Thanks for the compliment on the moon shots!As for ViewNX 2:&nbsp; For the handling of RAW files, it's a lot better than Picasa!&nbsp; LOL&nbsp; It has a lot of the basics.&nbsp; White balance control, sharpness, exposure, and it makes it fairly easy to get a quick and decent post process, but after having messed with the trial of LR 5 for a month, it leaves me...&nbsp; underwhelmed.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, it's quite functional and easy to use, and when used in conjunction with an after processing editor, like Picasa for effects, it's not bad at all, but LR 5 blows it away (as it should for a well respected &quot;pay&quot; program).&nbsp; I, myself, decided to go with LR 5 after reading recent reviews of Aperture on the app store.&nbsp; It seems LR 5 set itself way ahead of Aperture with the last update, and Aperture hasn't caught up yet.&nbsp; Plus, the local photography school where I'm taking classes teaches Adobe classes, but no Aperture, since it's open to all platforms instead of just Mac, so that might have influenced my decision a little as well.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />There wouldn't be much of a jump between learning the basics of post processing in ViewNX 2 and jumping up to one of the more advanced progs, though.&nbsp; They're all going to have a similar control base, at least LR 5 does, so the basic skills you learn should be easy to maintain when you upgrade.Of course, just all my opinion.For reference - Here's just a QUICK touch up I did of the same moon RAW file up above, using ViewNX2 only, then saved to JPEG:[ATTACH]47907[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pretzel, post: 186055, member: 12257"] Thanks for the compliment on the moon shots! As for ViewNX 2: For the handling of RAW files, it's a lot better than Picasa! LOL It has a lot of the basics. White balance control, sharpness, exposure, and it makes it fairly easy to get a quick and decent post process, but after having messed with the trial of LR 5 for a month, it leaves me... underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, it's quite functional and easy to use, and when used in conjunction with an after processing editor, like Picasa for effects, it's not bad at all, but LR 5 blows it away (as it should for a well respected "pay" program). I, myself, decided to go with LR 5 after reading recent reviews of Aperture on the app store. It seems LR 5 set itself way ahead of Aperture with the last update, and Aperture hasn't caught up yet. Plus, the local photography school where I'm taking classes teaches Adobe classes, but no Aperture, since it's open to all platforms instead of just Mac, so that [I]might[/I] have influenced my decision a little as well. ;) There wouldn't be much of a jump between learning the basics of post processing in ViewNX 2 and jumping up to one of the more advanced progs, though. They're all going to have a similar control base, at least LR 5 does, so the basic skills you learn should be easy to maintain when you upgrade. Of course, just all my opinion. For reference - Here's just a QUICK touch up I did of the same moon RAW file up above, using ViewNX2 only, then saved to JPEG: [ATTACH=CONFIG]47907._xfImport[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification