--Rik (rjlittlefield)
==============================================
John Koerner...
Hi Chris;Chris S. wrote: I was bothered by a number of elements in that fellow's tirade. Among them, that he referred to Zerene Stacker as a $300 program. Sure, it's $290 for professional use, but I'll bet the great majority of users are paying $40 (students) or $90 (non-pros). And Zerene Stacker is by no means crippled at these lower price points.
Tirade? What I wrote wasn't a tirade, it only served to illustrate examples of what I experienced within the parameters of my test. I also know of multiple fine art photographers who have had similar issues with Zerene mismanaging colors on high-density files.
By contrast, it has been established that Photoshop CS5 has its own troubles handling deep, high-magnification stacks: 1) taking forever to process them and 2) making more errors than Zerene when asked to handle a huge workload.
Therefore, which product is "best" all depends on the kind of photography one is doing: super-deep stacks at high magnification (but with little color to manage) or smaller stacks where deep, rich color rendition is what's most desired.
And I wrote of a $290 program because the article was intended to reflect the full gamut, and maximum cost, of each edition.
Well, I guess it all boils down to honesty then. If I were to purchase the Zerene product (and I may well at some point), it would be as a professional who intends to sell his work ... same as I payed over $2,500 to get the full Adobe Master Collection CS5, rather than try to skate with the much less expensive "student" version.Chris S. wrote: A few of the "faster workflow" capabilities are available only under the pro license, but all of the "quality output" features are there even under the cheapest license.
Well, I am sorry you don't like my photography. If you read the article, I purposely took shots that would be "hard" for any stacker to handle precisely to see how they'd handle them.Chris S. wrote: His test seems to start with bad photography and a demand that some magic wand will correct it for him. But most stacking photomacrographers want to step through boundaries that even good photography has heretofore not able to cross. So the guy just doesn't get it. From his findings, all I can learn is that if someone wishes to make precisely the same mistakes he does, his findings might apply. Sheesh.
I would love to see some of your own photography, so that I could know what "good" photography looks like.
The only thing I don't "get" is your hostile attitude to my experiments. I do understand fanboyism makes people act funny sometimes, and if you are a fan of Zerene and didn't like my conclusions, that's fine. But why the hostility and insults?
Actually, Photoshop CS5 is the very expensive Ferrari, that most people cannot afford, while Zerene is a useful (but much more limited) program that is within most people's affordable reach.Chris S. wrote: Photoshop stacking vs. Zerene Stacker stacking is like Yugo vs. Ferrari.
This is an outstanding point you have made, and I couldn't agree with you more: the level of support Rik puts out is unparalleled and deserves extreme loyalty, no doubt.Chris S. wrote: But even if the two programs were equal, the support that comes with Zerene Stacker would make it an easy buy. On behalf of Fortune 500 companies, I've been involved in multi-million dollar software purchases. Did my clients ever get the kind of support Rik gives? No way, not ever. Not long ago, I made a suggestion to Rik for an "N'th frame" stacking feature, as a help in determining optimal movement increments. I've come to expect incredible support from Rik, but was still blown away when, that very day, he sent me a link to a beta version of Zerene Stacker he had altered to add this capability. That very day. And it worked great. Now, a few weeks later, that feature, among others, has been rolled out without fanfare, in an updated release at no cost to licensed Zerene Stacker users. Anybody think this would happen with Photoshop?
I am pretty sure sure you wouldn't have the gonads to be speaking this way to me if we were face-to-face, and I am even more certain that you'd immediately regret it if you did.Chris S. wrote: Too kind, Rik. As The Bard said: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
That said, I have insulted no one in my article, and I mean to insult no one here, so IMO you owe me an apology for your insults.
If my article contained errors or omissions, they were purely accidental, but if it provided any truths about the strengths/weaknesses of each program, then we will all be better off.
Jack
.