Well I'm sorry but I can't really see a great deal of value in Don's comparison. Please don't misunderstand me I have no loyalty to RSE whatsoever, but the same comments would apply whatever programs were used. How can you virtually dismiss RSE on the strength of a test which as I understand it has simply used the default setting within the two progs.
Surely a test would be better served if a file was adjusted to ones personal preferences. To me for example the RSE version is slightly warmer than NC. Maybe there is a tad less contrast. However its not my image and I don't have an idea in my head of what I would expect it to look like. Indeed another person may like the RSE version better, that would be down to personal likes and dislikes.
The point is though that had you used ACR in CS2 it would have applied different default settings and the image would no doubt look completely different. This default setting scenario is surely not the issue though. RSE like NC, C1, ACR, and Bibble all have the abilitiy to tweak the images ad infinitum to ones personal preferences.
I personally don't see how we can say from this example than one is better than the other. Just what would the criteria be that would say definitively that one is better than the other anyway
After looking at the two attachments again in PS I would also comment that the RSE version shows marginally more detail in the blacks, round the barge window for example. Also the full image has some serious compression artefacts, and neither of these are apparent in the browser, so where does that leave us?
