Congratulations Dan. I have learned so much from you. Learning from you began in 2002 when I purchased and read PPE4. Sorry to be late in issuing my congratulations. I had the great privilege of being

Well, Dan, I wish I could transfer to you some of my enthusiasm for photography and post-processing tools. I do agree with most of the comments made by others on this thread, however, I will go in a d

Dan, I am sorry to hear you have had a bad last few months. Hope you are doing better. I do hope the list continues to exist. I will be very disappointed if the PPW panel stops working with the latest

I was going to say I disagree with this. However, I really am skeptical that it will work very well for many of us. So to be specific I do not have reservations about creating auxiliary versions and h

What is known about the risk that Adobe may do something to totally break the PPW panel? Is there a risk that Giuliani will not be able to fix it if Adobe breaks it? I would certainly be willing to pa

I think my version is competitive with par. Mine is 1021. Maybe I am seeing this as too easy as I would characterize 14 of the 25 as acceptable to be included in par. I have not been very impressed wi

My version is an outlier. By me saying that I am sure most of you who look will know which image is mine without me giving its number. I will also say it is ok with me if Dan or any of you are not gen

Maybe I can make the par feel better. I like it and I do like the color. In my opinion, it is better than many of the individual submissions. I also like the alt par versions and look forward to learn

Ken, In my opinion, yours is quite good. If it is not picked for the par I will be surprised. Mine is 819, and at least I am not embarrassed by it. Actually, I kind of like the way mine came out. Jim

I was quite pleased to see these results. Mine, #732, was a lot closer to the par than I was expecting. In my judgement there are 16 I would say are inferior to mine, some only slightly so. Jim Gray

I appreciate all of the analysis that Dan is putting into these case studies. So, maybe I should just keep quiet. Mine, #630 is flagged as too yellow. For my taste, both the par version and 609 are to

The new experience does a lot for me. I do not know what Henry's experience and background are. So I will tell you what mine is. I am purely an amateur at both photography and post-processing. I acqui

David, I like your version quite a lot. Jim Gray

#case-study-results

Mine is 426. I agree with Gerald that he did a pretty good job. I like my sky better. I think the par version is better than either. I found this image really difficult. My first version was not very

#case-study-results

Mine is 316. I believe the reason the banner looks a little weird is because of the use of ALCE 3.0. This is from my notes: Ran ALCE 3.0 with radii 5, 90, & 250. Then put a mask on the neutral areas.

It seems to me that at least one take away from this experiment is that we should rarely totally discard any image versions that we judge to be poor. The supposedly poor correction may be very useful

1) For each of #308, #309, and #336, I request that you assign a letter grade (A+ is best, C- is worst because I don’t think there are any Ds or Fs here) #308 *Overall color feeling? A- *Presentation

I just want to thank Dan for the amount of work he puts into commenting on and evaluating each of the images submitted. I think my mistake on the light skin tones was not ditching the red channel tota

I did aim for something similar to what Jim S and Bill B were aiming for. I did think the women's garments should be a bit blue and not neutral black like the par version. However, I agree the par ver

Hi Kirk, I think my Mantilla image is better than a lot of them but not as good as the par version. I have been wanting specific information like what you have written below about different types of p