Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 12/03/2013 22:33 (12/03/2013 13:33) |
| Message-ID | <2013120313332424991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (2h & 58m) > Savageduck |
On 2013-12-03 20:20:29 +0000, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>said:
Tony CooperWhat I want to do is the operative thing here.
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:38:27 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:nospam
In article <ns8s99l3hrha7sjkeuu3akmqk0dboojho3@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:nospamSavageduckTony Cooper
Just for the hell of it I fired up GIMP 2.8.2 on my Mac about 30 minutes ago. Not wanting to push things too much (I didn't try a TIFF) I managed to load a 3,5MB JPEG without issue. Now I had a JPEG open in GIMP, and my usual smooth PS workflow got dumped. This left me having to work around the GIMP kludgyness and improvise to get close to what I would have been able to do in PS or LR, but only close, certainly not in anyway an equal result. So many of the PS & LR features I take for granted are nonexistent in GIMP, there is no work around they are just not there. This might be acceptable to somebody not having access to PS or LR, but not to anybody familiar with Adobe releases of PS, LR, or PSE of the last 5 years. When it comes to making any sort of comparison the only conclusion I can come to is, GIMP is crippled when put up against PS, PSE, LR, Aperture, Pixelmator, Acorn, and even PSP, or DxO.
Now more than ever I am convinced that I would only resort to GIMP under dire circumstances, and would probably move to Pixelmator or Acorn first if For some reason I no longer had access to the Adobe software I currently use.
Really, Duck, all you've shown is the equivalent of being able to ride a bicycle, but falling flat on your ass trying to ride a unicycle. But, a circus clown in oversized shoes can ride a unicycle and do tricks on it.
To really make your point, you'd have to put the same amount of time and effort into learning how to successfully process an image in Gimp that you've put into learning how to successfully process an image in Photoshop.
Most of the "kludge" effect is that you're working with a program that is not what you're used to using and proficient at using.
no, the problem is that functionality is missing and what he wants to do is not possible. no amount of proficiency or time spent can fix that.
Tony CooperThere is no claim by me or for that matter Alan Browne, Jonas, or nospam that the processing of digital images is the exclusive domain of Adobe. There is however, a chasm between the capabilities of GIMP and the current Adobe software, and that gap isn't remotely close to being filled.
Are you claiming that no one can process an image successfully in Gimp? That the functionality incorporated in PS is required to process an image successfully?
That SavageDuck, with enough practice with the Gimp, couldn't produce a processed image that is fully acceptable to him?An image that is fundamentally acceptable perhaps. However, fully acceptable given that there are tools & functions I use which are not available in GIMP would be a push. I would be frustrated that there was not a work around and the result would always be a compromise compared to what I would be able to produce using LR or PS. So, for basic adjustments, and crop GIMP would do, doing anything else would leave me wondering how I could fix it.
Before you make such a proclamation over the ease of post processing an image in GIMP to the point that either you, or I would be satisfied, why don't you just look for yourself. GIMP is there for you to download and test. Then tell us how you think it compares. Until you do that you are speculating as to the real capabilities of GIMP. < http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ >
-- Regards,
Savageduck
11/30/2013-
-
