<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Opinions on Adobe Lightroom (beta 4.1)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/</link>
	<description>Where the right and left brains meet</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: droiby</title>
		<link>http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>droiby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/#comment-60</guid>
		<description>I don't think there's a PC version of Aperture. That, along with the fact that I don't have a Mac, means that I'm unable to test it out.

Playing with RAWs is a very subjective area and different people will come to different conclusions about different products based on their workflows, and also the quality of the decoder. Since Canon uses their proprietary decoder in DPP, it's no surprise that it also yields the most accurate results. However, other decoders out there (like ACR) give you much more features so that you can tweak more stuff. Some people like it, some people don't find it useful. At the end of the day, just use whatever is most suited to getting the job done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a PC version of Aperture. That, along with the fact that I don&#8217;t have a Mac, means that I&#8217;m unable to test it out.</p>
<p>Playing with RAWs is a very subjective area and different people will come to different conclusions about different products based on their workflows, and also the quality of the decoder. Since Canon uses their proprietary decoder in DPP, it&#8217;s no surprise that it also yields the most accurate results. However, other decoders out there (like ACR) give you much more features so that you can tweak more stuff. Some people like it, some people don&#8217;t find it useful. At the end of the day, just use whatever is most suited to getting the job done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Ryall</title>
		<link>http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Ryall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/#comment-59</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the review, Keith.

I think I read a review of Aperture that said it is much simpler than Lightroom. Is there a version of Aperture for PC?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the review, Keith.</p>
<p>I think I read a review of Aperture that said it is much simpler than Lightroom. Is there a version of Aperture for PC?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zillidot</title>
		<link>http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>Zillidot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.droiby.net/2007/01/19/opinions-on-adobe-lightroom-beta-41/#comment-57</guid>
		<description>I wonder how Lightroom compares to Aperture?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how Lightroom compares to Aperture?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

