Adobe Creative Cloud Cost Analysis / Review

Adobe announced that they will no longer be selling individual licenses of programs like Photoshop CS6 and Premiere Pro, instead you can either license them individually at a cost of $19.99 per month or you can license the entire Creative Cloud Suite for $49.99 per month.  Adobe Lightroom, which is very popular with photographers, will still be sold as an individual package for a $79 upgrade fee.  If you go with entire Creative Cloud Suite, Lightroom is included, but if you go for the $19.99 per month Photoshop single application option you still have to buy Lightroom upgrades.  

I did a five year cost analysis for those photographers that use Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom only (which I believe covers most photographers).  Adobe has historically released a new version of Photoshop about every 18 months at a cost of around $179.  So you are paying approximately $10 per month for Photoshop assuming you upgrade when a new version comes out.  

The old method of purchasing Photoshop would cost $600 over five years, and the new Creative Cloud pricing cost doubles that at $1,200 over five years.  This assumes that most Photographers already have a sunk cost of purchasing the software (Adobe is giving you a $10/month reduction for the first year .... bid deal?).

If you go with the entire Creative Cloud suite your cost will be $3,000 over five years.  That does include Lightroom so that would save you around $300 over that five year period.  So you will be shelling out an additional $2,100 over five years for the Photoshop/Lightroom combination.  If you need and want access to the other products in the suite this might be a good deal, but if you don't, well it is just good news for Adobe. 

The other thing that concerns me is that Adobe has no incentive to improve their software.  Before they had to give you features and functionality to justify the price of the upgrade, but that is no longer an issue because you are stuck paying the same monthly fee regardless of any new features.  

You could just stick with Photoshop CS6, but they are going to get you because the Adobe Camera Raw engine, that is the heart of Lightroom, will not be upgraded unless you go with the Creative Cloud.  So you camera raw engine in Lightroom and Photoshop will be different and you loose a lot of the synergies that you get from keeping them in sync.  

Overall, this is a big money grab by Adobe.  It first started last year when they no longer allowed you to skip an upgrade for Photoshop.  I skipped CS5 and went from CS4 to CS6 because I didn't see anything in CS5 that I really needed and save myself $179.  Can't do that anymore.  Of course it doesn't matter anymore because you have to go with the Creative Cloud.  

The old pricing model didn't provide Adobe with enough steady and growing revenue.  Wall Street likes companies with steady (annuity) and growing revenue streams, they will give them a higher PE ratio than companies that need to sell new innovation via one time license fees every few quarters to keep the revenue coming.  This was a business decision pure and simple ... there is nothing here for the customers, but a lot for the stockholders.  I would feel better about it if they would just say it and not try to make it like they are doing something for the customers, we aren't a bunch of idiots.

Judging from the VERY NEGATIVE reaction that Adobe is getting on the forums, I wonder if this will backfire and hit their revenue hard and therefore their stock price.  Time will tell if photographers will just bitch about it for a few months and then capitulate in six to twelve months and pay Adobe their monthly fee.


Olympus OM-D E-M5 ... It is not the Best Camera, but it is good enough

Is the Olympus OM-D E-M5 good enough to be my camera system for personal / family photography?  

I have a Canon S100 point and shoot camera that I use when I need to be able to put my camera in my pant pocket, but the quality of the images, even at its base 80 ISO, just aren't that good.  My professional DSLRs, Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, and the Nikon D3S are the best cameras on the planet, but they are heavy and cumbersome when on vacation or when I'm taking a few photos for personal use at Christmas or birthday party.  

So I decided to test my OMD on the streets of Washington, DC.  I don't consider myself a "Street Photographer,", but I thought I would take my Olympus OM-D E-M5 out for a test drive.  So I took the Metro down to around the Tidal Basin where I thought the tourists, hoping to see the Cherry Blossoms, would be out in force.  The Cherry Blossoms are late this year because of the cold weather, so there weren't as many tourists as normal, but there still was quite a few.  I wasn't quite sure what I was going to take pictures of. The first thing you notice is the tourists are taking photos with iPhones, point and shoot camera, SLRs, and a surprising number of people using iPads as their primary camera.  Family members stand there all proud as they get their photo taken in front of the monuments. 

I started at the Jefferson Memorial and walked around to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial.  I then walked over to the Washington Monument (which is being repaired) and then over to the White House. 

I used two lenses, the Panasonic 25MM F1.4, and the Panasonic 100MM-300MM.  I typically shoot with wide-angle lenses, but I wanted to change it up and shoot with a long telephoto lens.  The 100-300 becomes a 200-600 (35MM equivalent lens) on the OMD.  I found myself having to constantly back up vs. getting closer as I normally do with my wide-angle lenses.  I found the 100-300 to be surprisingly sharp.  I had one strange thing happen that I am not sure is a result of the lens or the OMD Sensor.  If you look at the columns of the Lincoln Memorial you can see how jagged they are.  I shot JPG + RAW and they were both the same (I was thinking maybe that Lightroom was having a problem decoding the RAW).  This was shot at about 188MM.

Other than that, the Olympus and my two Panasonic lenses performed well.  Almost all of the photographs were shot at the camera's base ISO of 200, so I didn't stress the low ISO capabilities of this camera, expect for a few shots in the Metro which were shot at ISO 4000.

The lightness of the Olympus OM-D is so nice.  I walked about four miles over a three hour period and the camera and lenses were barley noticeable.  So is the excellent image quality that comes from a DSLR like my Nikon D800E and the associated size and weight worth the bother for personal use vs. taking something like the Olympus OMD which is super light and convenient.  If I want to put the camera in my coat pocket (not pants) I can put my Panasonic 14MM F2.5 pancake lens on my OMD.  It is a bit bulky, but it fits.  Try that with a DSLR.  The lenses that are being developed by Panasonic and Olympus for the Micro Four Thirds platform is very impressive.  

THE VERDICT:  We are planning a family vacation to Seattle this summer.  There should be some great photo opportunities.  I have decided to take my OMD and leave the Nikon DSLRs at home.  It is funny that I don't even notice the weight and size of my Nikon D4 with lenses like the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 when I am on the job as a professional photographer, but when I am on vacation or taking photos for personal use, it makes a big difference.  Don't get me wrong, the OMD is no match for the Nikon D4 or D800E for image quality, autofocus speed and accuracy, and dynamic range, but for personal use it is close enough.  I am a big believer that as a professional photographer I should be using the best equipment money can buy to deliver to my clients the best quality images.  For personal use, I am the customer and I choose to compromise quality for convenience. 

 Cherry Blossom Photography Olympus OM-D OMD Review

Cherry Blossom Photography Olympus OM-D OMD Review

Cherry Blossom Photography Olympus OM-D OMD Review


Read More

Nikon D4, Nikon WT-5A, ShutterSnitch, and the iPad ... Winner!!!

Many of my clients like to be able to see the results from a shoot real time, which is great by me because I can get real time feedback on the shoot.  I used to have to take my laptop and a long 25 foot USB cord to hook my camera to the laptop.  Between the cord and the laptop it was kind of clumsy.  I like to move around on a shoot and being tethered doesn't help.  I often shoot outside, and here again, the cord and laptop just got in the way and the laptop was hard to see in bright light without some kind of cover.

I read an article about an iPad app called ShutterSnitch that allowed a photographer to easily acquire images from his/her camera over WiFi.  Many photographers use the Eye-Fi card, but it only comes in SD format and my Nikon D4 doesn't support that.  You could use an SD to CF card adapter but I read about a lot of problems with weak signals and slow transmission.  Then there was the Nikon WT-5A Wireless Transmitter which is designed for use with the Nikon D4 D-SLR camera.  At $553 dollars at B&H it was a major investment vs. a $69 SD Eye-Fi card.  As I always tell my kids, when you GO CHEAP you PAY MORE. 

How many times have you bought something that was cheap and supposedly just as good as the best solution, only to have to deal with all the frustration and lost time, and at the end of the day you finally end up buying the best solution anyway.  And when I am with a client I don't want to be fumbling with unreliable equipment.

The WT-5A fits like a glove on my Nikon D4.  It was fairly easy to configure, and the connection to my iPad was fast and reliable.  The ShutterSnitch app is very intuitive.  It acquires the photos quickly, it allows you to rate and sort the files quickly.  Customers love to flick through all the photos and rate them real time.  

On a portrait shoot I use to put the proofs from the shoot on my website and have my client pick their favorites when they got back to their office.  Because the iPad is so easy to use and setup, I find myself using it on portrait shoots and I allow my client to pick their favorites before they leave and I can go right to retouching without the intermediate step of putting the proofs online.   This saves time, disk space, and my clients get their images faster.  The $553 for the Nikon WT-5A was money well spent!


FUJI X100 Review

I have had the Fuji X100 for about a month.  After reading about the image quality of this nostalgic looking camera, I had to see for myself if it was as good as advertised.  

The image quality is excellent, comparable to my Nikon D3S.  For doing street photography of static subjects the camera works great and is sufficiently responsive.  The X100 can sync a flash at 1/2000 of a second.  This is great when doing flash photography outside in bright sunlight.

Unfortunately, I have found a lot about this camera that make it difficult to use in many situations.  Here is my list of gripes:

  • I like to pick my focus point on my Nikon DSLR bodies.  I don't like to focus and recompose with the center focus point because that slight amount of movement can make a sharp eyelash a bit soft.  Selecting a new focus point on the X100 is very cumbersome, especially if you are using the optical viewfinder because the button you have to push to turn on the focus point selection is right next to your eye and hard to reach when looking through the viewfinder.
  • Manual focusing is useless.  It takes so many turns of the lens ring to move the focus that it becomes very tiresome.
  • The X100 has a macro capability but you have to push a button on the back of the camera and then toggle to macro mode to focus on subjects within two feet or so.  Why not just automatically switch to macro mode when the camera sees that you are trying to focus on something close by.  
  • There is a Command Button on the upper right side of the back of the camera.  The button is totally underutilized.  Why not push that button to go right into playback mode?
  • I shoot in RAW mode and it takes quite a long time to write to the SD card.  
  • The camera has a fixed 23mm lens (35mm equivelant).  There are times I wish the lens was a bit wider and a bit longer.  You can't complain about the lens quality, but when you just want to take one camera, having a fixed length lens can be limiting. 
  • All of the above problems make it very difficult to use this camera if you are trying to capture the moment. 
  • Video focusing is hit or miss.  The focus just seemed to wander everywhere.

Conclusion ... the image quality of a camera of this size is the best on the market and is the ONLY reason why I may keep the FUJI X100.  Fuji could do some things in micro code to fix many of the usability problems. They just came out with an update and made a few things better, but they still have a ways to go to where this camera is responsive enough to use to capture those priceless moments that will be lost while you are fiddling with the X100's controls.


I sold my Nikon D7000 DSLR

I bought a Nikon D7000 DSLR Camera back in November.  I was hoping to use it for video, some home family photography, and also for some professional shoots when I wanted a lighter, smaller camera.

- I found the video capability hard to use.  The shallow DOF looks great, but it also makes it very hard to keep in focus when your subjects or you are moving.  The video autofocus system was slow and hard to use and if you used the in-camera microphone, which I did, you could hear the lens focusing in the sound track.  I went back to using my Canon S90 and IPhone 4 for video.

- It took some great photographs of my family.  But it isn't that much smaller than my Nikon D700 and I use the D700, Nikon D3, and Nikon D3S for my professional work.  These three cameras are almost identical operationaly.  The D7000 is smaller than these cameras and it just didn't feel right in my hands.  I can use the other three Nikons with my eyes closed, I had to think too much when I switched to the D7000.

- I have read some reviews that believe the D7000 is a better camera than the D700.  If your a professional photographer and are focused on picture quality, fast and accurate autofocus, and responsiveness, the D700 is a better camera.  I tried to use the D7000 a few times while on assignment.  I found the autofocus not to be as responsive in low light as the D700.  A number of times I filled the camera's buffer and I had to wait for it to clear before I could take pictures.  I don't remember the last time that happened with my D700. 

For the money, the D7000 is a great camera.  It is half the price of the D700 and is probably the best APS-C sensor DSLR camera on the market.  And of course, the D7000 does video, the D700 doesn't.  But for me, since I already had a D700 which I love, it just wasn't a fit for me.

Pocket Wizard FlexTT5 for Nikon Review

I just received three Pocket Wizard FlexTT5s for Nikon.  I have been waiting two years for this technology ever since Pocket Wizard announced their offerings for Canon. Photographers who use Canon's E-TTL remote flash system or Nikon's i-TTL CLS flash system know the limitations of having to have your flashes in line of sight and within close proximity. Even when I would be inside within close proximity, I would have to make sure that the sensor on the remote flash was pointed back at my camera.  With my style of shooting I quite often move the lights all around my subject and having to re-align my flash to be sure it was pointing towards the camera was a real pain.

I tried the Radio Poppers but they were just too fragile for my purposes.  The RadioPopper PX transmitter box that was attached to the camera flash was held on by Velcro with a flimsy antenna sticking up in the air.   I move around a lot and quite often carry two cameras.  The Radio Popper transmitter kept getting bumped and would move or fall off the flash.  They also were very unreliable unless the batteries were very fresh.  I could barely get one photo shoot out of a set of batteries.  

I bought three Pocket Wizard TT5s vs getting a one Pocket Wizard TT1 and two TT5s because I didn't see much advantage other than size and $20 of getting the TT1.  The TT5 takes AA batteries vs a CR2450 for the TT1.  I don't know about you, but I have a lot of AA batteries laying around but not any CR2450s.  And, of course, the TT5 can act as a receiver and transmitter where the TT1 is just a transmitter.

They seem well built and I REALLY like the standard 1/4"-20 thread. I didn't even know that it had it until I received them.  I like to simplify my setups as much as I can.  The fewer parts that I have to put together when I get to a photo shoot the better.  I can mount the FlexTT5 right onto my light stand with the Manfrotto Swivel Umbrella Adapter.

One of the features of the FlexTT5 is the ability to tweak the flash sync speed beyond the 1/250 second  (they call it HyperSync). I have a Nikon D3S, D3,and a D7000.  I was able to sync all three cameras up to 1/400 using a Nikon SB800 as the remote flash before I went into Nikon's High Speed Sync.  I can sync up to 1/4000 of a second with my Alien Bee AB1600 but the light is so inconsistent over the sensor that you would never use it.  I couldn't get a clean, consistent flash with my AB1600 any faster than 1/320, 1/400 was usable but there was some shading going on.   My TT5 Sync delay on -200 when I am shooting with the AB1600. 

Testing them around my home (inside and outside) they seemed to work flawlessly except for one thing, when I used my Nikon D3S with a lens that had VR on I got flaky results. Sometimes the flash would work only if VR was off and sometimes only when VR was on.  It happened with both my Nikon 70-200 VR and my Nikon 105 Micro VR.  It didn't happen with my D3 or D7000.  I called the company and they said that VR can cause some problems and they hope to have it fixed in a future release of the software. 

You have to remember to take a few test shots to allow the TT5s to sync up, but once they do that they seemed to work fine.  I used the TT5 on the camera with and without a flash (SB900) attached.  Without the flash I put my camera in Manual mode and used the camera's exposure compensation to adjust the output of the flash.  With the SB900 attached, I was able to control the remote flashes from the SB900 controls just as I normally would without the TT5.  The remote flashes stay in TTL mode (not remote mode) and the switch on the Pocket Wizard TT5 allows you to designate which flash is in Group A, B, or C.

I hooked up my Pocket Wizard Plus IIs to one of my flashes and they went off when I fired my TT5. Of course, you can't control the flash output, but you can trigger a flash just like you have always done with PocketWizard Plus IIs. 

I hope to use these transceivers this weekend on a photo shoot.  We all know situations where things work great in your studio and you take them on location and nothing works.  I hope that won't happen here.

Here are my settings for my three TT5s.

                   Config 1                      Config 2

TT5/D3         Sync -240                   Sync -200 (used when I trigger Alien Bee AB1600)

                   HSS enabled 1/500      HSS - disabled

TT5/D3S       Sync -170                   Sync -170 (HSS Disabled)

                   HSS enabled 1/500      HSS - disabled

TT5/D7000    Sync -110                   Sync -200 (used when I trigger Alien Bee AB1600)

                   HSS enabled 1/500      HSS - disabled



Nikon D3S DSLR Review

I have had the Nikon D3S for about two months.  I have used the Nikon D3 for over three years and I really love it.  I was also using the Nikon D700 as my second camera.  The Nikon D700 is basically identical to the Nikon D3 in terms of picture quality and  autofocus.  They share the identical technology inside the two cameras.  The Nikon D3S adds another stop and a half to the ISO as well as video capabilities and sensor dust removal (which the D700 had but the D3 did not).   All three camera (Nikon D3, D3S, and D700) are 12.1 megapixels.  For me the big thing was the reduced noise at higher ISOs.  The two pictures were shot in a dark church and a dark reception hall in natural light.  They were shot at 10,000  and 8,000 ISO.  If you have a D3 you will be right at home with the D3S.  The controls and handling are the same.  The Nikon D3S is THE BEST camera on the market for photojournalists and wedding photographers or any photographer that needs to work in low light.

Nikon vs. Canon DSLR Review

Here we go.  There is nothing that can stir emotions among photographers like the debate as to which professional digital SLR is better - Canon or Nikon.

I started using Canon DSLRs back in 2002.  I plunked down $5000 for a 4 megapixel Canon 1D.  It was worth every penny.  It was fast, rugged, great autofocus and the picture quality was outstanding (relatively speaking for 2002).  The Canon lenses were all top notch.  I bought the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 200mm F1.8 (what a great piece of glass), 85mm F1.2, 100mm F2.0, 50mm F1.4, and the 24mm F1.4.  All great lenses and combined with the 1D bodies they really created some great photos with the help of the photographer.

I bought the Canon 1DS, the Canon 1D Mark II, the Canon 1DS Mark II, and the Canon 1D Mark III.  These were all great cameras for their time and Canon was the clear leader over Nikon for low noise, high ISO images and they were the only manufacture with a full frame 35mm camera with the 1DS models.

Nikon had the 1.5 cropped sensor, and their high ISO performance was always a step behind Canon.

In 2007 everything changed.  Nikon introduced the 12 megapixel, full frame, high ISO (low noise up to 6400 ISO), rugged, great autofocus Nikon D3. 

During this time Canon introduced the Canon 1DS Mark III which took the pixel count over 21mp and only slightly improved the high ISO capabilities of the Canon 1DS Mark II. The Canon 1D Mark III was a great camera ... 10mp, 1.3 cropped senor with respectable high ISO up to 3200.  Many users reported autofocus problems with the Canon 1D Mark III, but I never really experienced that.  Many Canon users started using the Canon 5D ... a full frame 13mp camera in a pro-sumer body.  The problem with the 5D was its autofocus system.  It was basically the same system as found in the consumer level Canon 40D model.  The focus points were tightly bunched in the middle of the finder and they weren't as sensitive or accurate as their Canon 1D big brother, leading to a lot of out of focus shots.  In good light this camera produced great images, but if you were photograping moving subjects in poor light you were in trouble.  Canon then came out with the 5D Mark II which took the pixel count over 21mp and improved the high ISO performance, but the autofocus system was still pro-sumer and the 21mp was overkill for what I needed.

As a photojournalist and wedding photographer 12mp is the sweet spot for resolution.  The images are big enough to allow you to enlarge photographs up to 24 x 36, yet small enough as not to fill up CF cards and hard drives quickly and take longer to process on my Mac.

I bought the Nikon D3 for $5000 in 2007 to replace my Canon 1DS Mark II.  The Canon 1DS Mark III was $8000 and 21mp (overkill for me) and the ISO performance was two stops worse than the D3.  Then I bought the Nikon 14-24 and the Nikon 24-70 lenses.  Both lenses were newly introduced and were amazingly sharp.

I used the Nikon D3 along side the Canon 1D Mark III for about 6 months.  When Nikon introduced the Nikon D700 in the summer of 2008 I made the switch to Nikon 100%.  I bought the  70-200mm F2.8, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, and the 16mm fisheye to go along with my other 14-24mm and my 24-70mm lenses. The D700 was about $2,700 and had the same exact full frame image senor and autofocus system as in the D3 in a slightly smaller and lighter body. 

I also bought a few Nikon SB800 flashes and later the SB900 flash.  I have no hard core testing on this, but the Nikon flashes seem to be more accurate and the iTTL system seems to work much better and easier than the Canon wireless flash system.

After I switched to the Nikon system the number of keepers for a wedding went up by 25%.  My in-focus and properly exposed shots were much higher with the Nikon.  Maybe I became a much better photographer, but it seems like quite a coincidence. 

Come forward to 2010 ... Canon has introduced its 15mp, 1.3 cropped sensor 1D Mark IV with better high ISO, but still a stop or so worse than the new full frame, 12mp, Nikon D3s that was introduced in late 2009. Canon doesn't seem to get it.  Give your customers better ISO and a full frame camera, and stop trying to cram more pixels into a cropped sensor. 

Nikon has introduced a new 70-200mm F2.8 that is just amazing.  I shoot it wide open and it produces wonderfully sharp images.  Canon also introduced a new 70-200 that I am sure is also excellent.

In terms of lenses, both Nikon and Canon have a great lineup ... you won't go Canon or Nikon because of the lenses.

If you doing landscapes or in-studio portraits, you can't go wrong with either system.  If your on the go and working in low light conditions, Nikon, IMO, gives you the best option.




Aperture 3 vs. Lightroom 3 Review - again

I was going to try to use Apple Aperture 3 for portrait shoots and use Lightroom 3 for large engagements like weddings and events.  You can beat Lightroom 3 for speed and workflow.  But Aperture 3 has some real nice brushes for skin smoothing, retouching, and blurring that would allow me to aleviate the need to go to Photoshop.  I can do some level of smooting and retouching in Lightroom 3, but it isn't as powerful as Aperture 3. 

So I did an executive photography shoot in my studio and decided give Aperture 3 the business.  I did an in camera white balance with my WhiBal card.  I brought the photos into Aperture and did my photo editing.  I had about a dozen photos so the the speed and workflow concerns aren't a big deal. 

The photos looked pretty good, but there were a few things that I just didn't like.  So for comparison purposes I imported the photos into Lightroom.  To my surprise the skin tones were more natural with Lightroom.  The Aperture skin tones were a little red and the vignette control just didn't give me a dark enough vignette and I wasn't able to control the shape and tone of the vignette as well as Lightroom.

These two pictures don't really show the differences that well. On my screen the differences were more pronounced.  The photograph on the left is from Lightroom and the photograph on the right is from Aperture.

I will still use Aperture for my home photographs and video management.  I was hoping the Lightroom 3 when it went into production would have better video support.  I can't wait for Adobe anymore so I bought Aperture 3 and love the video support and the slideshow feature which allows me to produce great movies that combine stills, video, and music.

The KILLER feature of Lightroom 3 is the Lens Correction feature.  I hand hold a lot of group portraits at weddings.  I try to get my lines straight in camera, but they always seemed to need to be tweaked in Photoshop.  This feature allows me to get nice straight lines and remove all lens distortion, saving me from a lot of round trips to Photoshop.  The noise reduction is much better and the overal image quality is much improved over Lightroom 2.

Aperture 3 Performance and Usability Review

I figured out how to get Apple's Aperture 3 to perform in a similar manner as Lightroom.  I upgraded my Mac Pro's graphics card from the nVidia GeForce 7300 GT to the ATI Radeon HD 4870 Graphics Card.  Aperture 3 takes advantage of all the processing power of the 4870 graphics card and really improves the performance when doing things like retouching,  skin smoothing, or even just changing global parameters like exposure and brightness. 

IMOP - anyone who is considering running Aperture 3 needs to make sure that their graphics card can handle it.  Apple does not specify any minimum configuration for Aperture other than it be a Mac computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor.  I have a Mac Book and Aperture 3 runs like a dog on it, it really isn't usable.

I have been using Aperture 3 for about six weeks now and there are still a few things that bug me.

They implemented most of the brushes perfectly.  I can modify a brushes' intensity after I have applied it and I can have multiple adjustments in case I want to control them independently. But for some reason when it comes to the retouch brush I can't modify the opacity after I have applied it (I can only modify just before I apply it and if I get it wrong I have to go back and delete it and re-do it), and I can't have multiple retouch adjustments.   Since I use the retouch a lot this would be a great enhancement.  The spot and retouch tool works in the same manner.

I still prefer how Lightroom allows me to sync adjustments from image to image, and I like how when I draw a mask using Lightroom's adjustment brush that I can change multiple parameters, like exposure, saturation, clarity, etc..


- Add retouch brush like Aperture and be able to change each brush independently.

- Add video and slideshow support like Aperture. 


- Give me independent brushes for retouching and spot removal so I can modify them at a later time.

- Allow me to sync changes as easily as Lightroom (I really love Lightroom's Previous button)