Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02



Many thanks to all for your quick, sympathetic, informative, and
helpful advice and comments.  I particularly value the specific
information on features present or more effective in one program or
another.

I guess the thing for me to do is give the PS 6.0 free tryout a
workout during the month it will be available to me-- hoping for a
significant upgrade deal.  PS 5.0 LE +  Jasc 7.02 looks like a viable
fallback option.  And, at $35, I might as well take a look at Corel,

Yes, VueScan is a marvel, getting better each week.  I don't know
where Ed gets the energy, but I'm sure greatful.  It takes the strain
out of massaging the prints.  But, I've noticed, there's no substitute
for full exposure of my negatives.  Even 800 ASA Fuji, with full
exposure, scans beautifully.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 07:24:11 -0500, you wrote:

>I'm new to all this, just getting my feet wet, and have a very basic
>question about image processing software.  It's clear, from all the
>content here, that PS, and in particular PS 6.0, is the Rosetta stone,
>an essential professional tool for achieving image quality, and
>uniformity, in publishing.  
>
>But what about lower-class people like me?  I'm an amateur, with very
>modest equipment (an Acer Scanwit 2740S and an Epson 900), very much
>in the learning mode.  Should I shell out the $500+ bucks, plus the
>learning time, to get a grip on 6.0?  Will 5.0 LE serve me better, at
>least in the learning phase and possibly for all time?  And what about
>the Jasc program?  It receives rave reviews in popular (i.e.
>non-professional) reviews, especially in computer publications, but I
>don't recall any reference to it in this list.  Why not?  What
>capabilities is it missing, that I really ought to have in order to do
>quality work?
>
>Put another way, how do I choose software that matches the
>capabilities of the rest of my system, and yet provides a reasonable
>path for future upgrade?




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.