Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 11/30/2013 20:49 (11/30/2013 14:49) |
| Message-ID | <301120131449415904%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | ray carter |
| Followups | ray carter (6h & 5m) > nospam |
In article <bfunteFlrvnU4@mid.individual.net>, ray carter <ray@zianet.com>wrote:
you don't have to be a professional or graphics designer to use good tools. anyone can use them.ray carterAlan BrowneSavageduckray carter
I will say this, you should be seeing a difference, a big difference in the image quality between files produced by your G2 and your 600D. If not, the problem might lie in some peculiarity in your photographic technique, but most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying attention to improving your photography.
There is much more that goes into the selection of an OS, at least for most of us, than the impact of one application.
I have proudly used Linux exclusively for over a decade - I've yet to find anything important to me that I can't do with it and in the process, I've saved thousands of dollars.
Meanwhile in the professional world of graphics design, including photographic editing, the "creatives" choice remains OS X coupled to application suites from Adobe and others.
Many of us are not "professionals" in "graphics design" - quite frankly, I don't have the same requirements, so it does not matter much what they use.
the point is that people who do this every day, where productivity is important, do not choose shitty tools.
you can use the very same high quality tools as they do, or you can choose the shitty tools. why someone would intentionally choose the latter i don't know but some people do.
who needs to pretend? linux market share on the desktop is tiny and shrinking. whether it's 1.6% or 2.5% or even 6% doesn't matter. it's tiny.Alan Browneray carter
Linux "market share" for desktop continues its decline as OS X rises (Macs being more affordable than ever has a lot to do with that...).
In desktop use, as of 2013 OS X stands at about 6.5% (up from a few percent at the start of the intel switch) and Linux has declined to 1.6% from a high of around 2.5% or so.
PROBLEM: There have never been reliable numbers for that. How, for instance, would one even pretend to know how many desktop machines have Linux installed?
BTW: Linux is probably the most used OS on the planet. All those Android platforms run a Linux kernel and Java VM.android may have linux at its core, but it's not running linux apps and therefore is not counted as a linux system. linux geeks like to include it because that's the only way they can pretend that linux is more common that it actually is.
android is running android apps, written to the android api, running in the dalvik and now art virtual machine.
android users don't know nor care there's linux under the hood. they didn't buy it because it has linux, they bought it because they wanted a particular phone. google could replace linux with something else and nobody would know because the apps run out of the vm.
many consumer devices run linux and don't even have apps, such as watches and thermostats.
11/30/2013-
-
