maxsang: I use AfterShot, which used to be called Bibble until it was bought by Corel about a year ago. It's very similar to Lightroom and available for Windows, Mac and Linux.
It's fast and easy to use, and the few things it can't do (e.g. layer masks) are usually achievable in Gimp. Surprised it wasn't mentioned - it was one of the four 'main editing programs' in a review I read a couple of years ago. You can download a trial version IIRC and it's not expensive to buy the full version - US$100 or so I think.
Actually, they've lowered the price to US$60. A great bargain compared to Lightroom, which is its category competitor, rather than Photoshop.
For people who don't understand the implications of editing pixels, their main concern about alternative image editors is whether it can do what Photoshop can do, and whether they'd get swallowed up in a strange work environment with alien functions and buttons. That's what keeps most people away from the alternatives.
For people who do understand, their concern is whether any editing done damages the image (as editing pixels really means transforming its numerical values). I myself have this thought in the back of my head whenever I use other apps, either to try them out, to recommend to friends, or on those times when I just want to get on a bike rather than into a truck.
What? It can't boil an egg or fry bacon? I don't think I want one...
boothrp: Nice to read about pictures instead of cameras.
It's clear that it's not a literal presentation of the negative chip. The film is a negative but the inset photo (stripped in, of course) is a positive image. I believe the container negative with the sprocket holes is what is called a graphic device.
I don't see why we need to point out errors that are not errors.
EYap: This wasn't even an interview. A classic example of saying a lot and saying nothing. Either they don't know where they're going or they do but are not tellling. I'm guessing it's the latter.
The industry is undergoing rapid change now with the entry of "inexpensive" full-frame sensors, and it's going to affect the Four-Thirds market. I suspect pros and enthusiasts will go with full frame SLRs, leaving the Four-Thirds, maybe even the APS sensors, to the mirrorless compacts. That would be a welcome development, so we can have bigger sensors in the low end rather than the blah 1/2.3.
The writing is on the wall: bigger sensors are getting cheaper. That means the reason for APS and 4/3 sensors is not valid anymore. Every Monday at their weekly meetings the members of the 4/3 consortium should ask themselves, "So are we still doing 4/3 this week?"
This wasn't even an interview. A classic example of saying a lot and saying nothing. Either they don't know where they're going or they do but are not tellling. I'm guessing it's the latter.
Personally I'd rather the manufacturers worked on a fast f/2 or f/2.8 lens speed and a zoom range of 20-200mm, or 24-200mm. If they can't do what Panasonic did with their FZ200 I wouldn't mind a variable speed of f/2.8-3.5.
F/3.0-5.9 is not an attractive option, considering many of these small cameras stop at f/8 on the other end. So what, just two stops on the tele end?
There is no mention of a speed boost. Media Pro 1 and 1.1 took more than three times longer than Expression Media to catalog the same number of CR2s and JPEGs.Version 1 could not even create large previews properly. The large previews displayed the thumbnails instead.