nospam
In article <87mwklmsp6.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson
So the fact that you don't have to develop your own set of tools, and just take one off the shelf and form you workflow around it somehow is better. Fine.

nospam
it means i get results with a lot less work. that's a huge plus.

unlike you, i don't like making things more difficult than it needs to be.

i choose the best tool for the job, and if a tool can do what i want with a couple of clicks rather than write a script (or even use a provided one), why not do it the easier way?

to not do so would be stupid.

Floyd L. Davidson
Except you of course missed the point that what was describe turns out to be faster, more efficient and more effective because the tools are designed to match the needed workflow in stead of the other way around.

nospam
it's not faster at all. in fact, it's far slower since you have to write and debug the script. that script did not write itself and it wasn't perfect on the first try either.

Floyd L. Davidson
You make it sound as if each job requires development of every shell script used!

nospam
i never said that, but it might require modifications, possibly even significant changes to do what you want.

the first version of your script did not solve every possible problem.

Floyd L. Davidson
But of course on a normal basis that isn't required. These tools are developed over a period of years and are very precisely targeted at reducing wasted time with a specific workflow.

nospam
tools which must be developed and maintained, which is not a zero cost.

meanwhile, what you described is no more complicated than a few clicks with a tool that's designed to do the task and has existed for years.

Floyd L. Davidson
And when something special that is different comes along, that your program can't do... you just have to slug through it.

nospam
and when something special that is different comes along, that your script cant do... you just have to modify it so that it does, then test it and debug it, which takes time.

Floyd L. Davidson
If it adds 5 seconds to each image processed in a couple of shoots with 1000 images, that's 10,000 seconds of time. If instead of wasting 2 or 3 hours, one spends 10 minutes writing a shell scrip that does it all in half an hour... You think your whiz bang click the buttons program is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I see it as a drag on productivity.

nospam
it's hardly a drag, but if you want to script a gui app, you still can.

apparently you don't know that photoshop can be scripted. it can also record actions so you don't even need to write anything, maybe make minor tweaks to it.

apparently you also don't know that any script you write for linux will run on mac os x (probably unmodified, or at most with very minor tweaks). there are also various tools such as imagemagick on mac, so you can fall back to all of your primitive methods if you want.

Floyd L. Davidson
I get better results in 1/3rd the time, so who is right?

nospam
you do not get better results in 1/3rd the time. that's flat out bullshit.

you've never used photoshop or lightroom, which means you've never done any sort of comparison, so how could you possibly have come up with a number anyway?