<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>RE: [DM-MUG] Aperture .v
Photoshop</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"><b>I can't help but wonder why a photographic
program (Aperture) would advertise the benefits of using another
sepererate photographic program (Adobe Photoshop), and especially a
program (Aperture) listing for $500. This quote seems to be
telling us that Photoshop is the benchmark graphical image
manipulation program. And this begs the question; why do we need
Aperture? For $500 I would expect Aperture to at least attempt
to compete with Photoshop, not glorify the benefit of Photoshop
instead.</b></font></blockquote>
<div><font size="+1"><b><br></b></font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica">I've bee</font>n researching Aperature [I
don't have full Photoshop] - it does some of what PS does but not all
-- it is mainly a post-production program. It takes RAW files
and does not edit them, instead edits what you see on screen and
leaves the files alone....it also helps organize images. I
gather it would pair well with PS [or in my case PSE] and PS would be
needed for fine work, filters etc...but Aperature would be good for
accessing and basic manipulation and storage of the image....</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><font face="Palatino" color="#000000">Victoria L. Herring,
Attorney, Civil Rights, Discrimination & Employment Law,
<http://www.HerringLaw.com>; Travel research and planning,
<http://www.JourneyZing.com>; Des Moines, Iowa,
515-255-4475. Photographs now on display at Borders Books &
Cafe, West Des Moines:
http://victoriajz.smugmug.com</font></div>
</body>
</html>