J. Clarke
In article <87mwklmsp6.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...

Floyd L. Davidson
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:

nospam
In article <3PSdnR7bfK0hZATPnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson
Also be aware that with Linux if you become proficient at writing shell scripts there is just no end of ways to improve productivity. The ImageMagick tools are fabulous for editing. And there are many ways a shell script can speed up your workflow. For example, I preview my images, as JPEGs, with a very customized version of XV which can sort them into various directories. The JPEG images I don't want to convert with UFRAW go into one special directory, and then a shell script moves the RAW files to the same directories where the JPEG is now at. Then I run UFRAW and it never loads a file I don't want to process. Plus when I want to run the batch on all of them, I use a script that does odd things like automatically setting wavelet noise reduction depending on the ISO it was shot at, and it determines how many CPU cores are available and proceeds to keep each CPU busy with a different process (which with as many as 12 cores can make a huge difference in how fast a few hundred RAW files can be converted to TIFF files).

nospam
if that isn't proof that linux users do things in the most difficult and most convoluted way possible, i don't know what is.

Alan Browne
Well put. (Except that Linux users can make things even more difficult and convoluted when they really warm up).

To a Linux user the above inanity is a badge of honour.

nospam
no kidding. they think it is somehow a good thing.

meanwhile, mac/win users can do the same in almost no time, without needing to write and debug a script. drag lightroom to the apps folder and start processing.

once they do that, they can go out and do something more interesting in all the time they have left over from not needing to hack up and then debug a solution.

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.

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.

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

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

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

J. Clarke
(1) Since a Mac is a unix box, shell scripts should work fine on it. (2) Powershell on Windows gives just as much control as any Unix shell, possibly more so.

But the fact is that most photographers want to take and process pictures, not develop programming proficiency.