Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | bd |
| Date | 12/02/2013 01:58 (12/02/2013 00:58) |
| Message-ID | <l7glvj$t3e$1@usenet.pasdenom.info> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | Savageduck (1h & 4m) |
Le Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:30:23 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson a écrit :
Floyd L. Davidson
bd <bdebreil@teaser.fr>wrote:
On 2013-12-01 12:48:35 +0000, sid <sidney@sidshouse.net>said:bd
Savageduck wrote:
I said his choice of OS is a distraction. It is certainly limiting, even though you might not think so.
beSo what did you mean when you saidFloyd L. Davidson
"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."
I meant what I said. By locking himself out of obvious and accessible solutions, including the one provided by Canon when he bought his 600D, because he refuses to consider the option of another OS, is going to be a distraction. He might be talented at subject selection, he might be a natural at composition, the RAW files he captures in his camera might
the equal of Adams, Steiglitz, Karsh, et al, but he still has aproblem,
mostly due to his choice of OS.Has it ever occured to you that what motivates a non professional photographer is a set of various things, including curiosity ? Curiosity about the taken pictures and what you do with them, how to improve them etc... but also about the various processes that you will apply to them ? When I was a kid, I shot argentic pictures, and I recall that the chemical processing - which I carried out myself - was almost as pleasurable as the shooting. I used to try various chemical treatments so as to enforce contrasts, lights and shades etc... A lot of people said to me that I would have had better time having my films treated by a photograph, which was more simple, probably cheaper in the end and perhaps better, while, in the meantime, I would avoid getting bothered with toxic chemicals such as the SO2 breathing from potassium metabisulphite in the fixating agent, the hours of confinement inside the dark room etc...
I think that is in a way similar to my choice of using linux alternate software rather than the tools which Canon provided.
In the other hand, if it were more important for me to quickly obtain good results without any hassle, I would have at least tested the Canon tools under MSWIN...
This being said, it is very true that I prefer using Linux OS rather than MSWIN. The only version that I have on an old PC is Windows XP, and I only boot it once every six months whenever I want to download new road maps for my GPS tool... There are ways to do this under Linux, but it requires so much work to get it to first operate that I decided not to go through this, especially for something that I only need twice a year.
I never had an antivirus software, even in the days when I mostly worked under MSWIN (at the time it was Windows 3.1 and MSDOS 6.2...). 2 or 3 times I thought about installing antivirus software, but, each time, after reading the detailed notice, I decided that there was more danger in the antivirus than in the viruses... I never had a virus in any machines I used.
I know several other people who do prefer using Linux rather than MSWIN or OS/X, and, just as Floyd, they claim that one can do a lot more and a lot better with this. True enough, this might not at start seem as simple as when using commercial dedicated software. In most Linux software, though, you can fiddle with the program code and adapt it to your needs, while there is no way you can access the code in commercial software.
11/30/2013-
-
