Brian,
I developed most of those in ACR. The pot, I think, was a Panny JPEG that I pped a bit.
If anyone is seeing something just "not quite right" please let me know because, although my monitor is a pretty good one, it's not one of the expensive made-for-photography monitors and I've had to calibrate it with my eyeballs and sample images only.
The ACR route I'm using is raw development into Elements 7 (because it's cheap) and then I save a TIFF or PSD and edit in CS3. I'm going to bite the bullet and get either CS4 (most likely) or Lightroom in order to get a more full featured version of ACR.
Blue skies can be a noise problem (not as bad as the E-400 or D-410/510 were - it's about on par with the E-3) but Neat Image really cleans it up well. By comparison, the noise removal features in CS3 do a terrible job of it.
I really like the 9-18 but 7-21 would be better. Unfortunately no one is going to make that lens so we'll have a choice of the Lumix 7-14 (very very interested in that lens - and to the guy who asked no, I don't think it's slated to have OIS), this lens or the Zuiko 7-14 which is, thus far, a manual focus only lens (for a lot of dough). The 9-18 gets a bit weird right in the very corners if you're shooting in 4:3 format but in the narrower formats it's better due to the crop. I think the key with the Lumix 7-14 is going to be "how is it in the corners"? If it does a better job than the 9-18 then I'll be willing to lose the longer long end but if not I'll stick with the 9-18 because with 18mm available one can almost use it as a standard lens - it's close to "normal" at least whereas 14mm just isn't. I guess what I'm saying is I can get by with the 9-18 as a walkabout lens but I don't think I could with a 7-14.
If only the Zuiko 12-60 were a 10-50! :shocked: :grin:
Cheers,
Oly