andybc wrote:
That's good if the program is aimed at those wanting to improve snaptshots, but not for pros or semi-pros wanting their rendtion of a photo rather than Apple's.
"Pro" has no bearing here (there is no reason to use it to bash excellent, caring non-pros). I agree 100% with the following:
That's good if the program is aiming at those wanting to quickly process photos to make them acceptable; photographers who prefer more control -- and to develop their photos to their taste, rather than to Apple's -- need and deserve the most sophisticated multi-dimensional Bricks Apple can make.
I call the new auto-enhance tool the "National Geographicizer". It works well. I don't want my photos to look like that.
The dispute really comes down to what you identified: should photo development tools be result-nuetral, like a loaf pan and a mix-master, or valorize a particular result or set of results over others (like a boxed bread mix, or even like a sleeve of cookie dough)?
I don't mind having tools for the unskilled installed on my kitchen counter (as long as they don't take up room); I mind very much having them take over the counter and finding that my mix-master now runs on only one speed with only one kind of dough hook.