Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 03/13/2014 22:41 (03/13/2014 17:41) |
| Message-ID | <130320141741468607%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Rikishi42 (3h & 57m) Tony Cooper (4h & 30m) > nospam |
In article <2i74i95akjcnjkpjdq3p15sa9adjpqtn8g@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:
that's a flawed comparison, as usual.Tony CooperTony Coopernospam
The learning curve for Gimp is no different than the learning curve for CS, Elements, or Lightroom for basic editing. It is a bit more difficult to learn only because there are fewer tutorials, and some of the tutorials are not as well done as the ones for the Adobe products.
it's more difficult because it was designed by geeks who don't know much about ui/ux design. photoshop was desgined by photographers and graphic artists *for* photographers and graphic artists, and it's been refined over the years.
The "learning curve" is about how long it takes a person to become proficient, and "proficient" is based on the person's needs. The people who use Gimp don't - as a rule - have high-end needs.
for a valid comparison, you need to use the same tasks for both apps.
someone with lesser needs won't need to learn as much, so obviously it will take less time for those with lesser needs, unless the app is totally braindead (which does happen).
Starting at Day One, two people of equal ability to work with a new program will be proficient enough in the same number of days in either program.wrong.
Adobe's programs are fantastic; I'm now at CC CS6, have and use LR, own (but don't use very much) Elements 9, and will have Premiere as soon as it arrives. But, there's no need to badmouth Gimp when it does the job for those who use it.i'm not badmouthing anything. i'm stating the facts.
adobe put an enormous amount of engineering resources in designing and refining the interface of photoshop and other adobe products, with much of that based on input from actual photographers and designers. the code is *extremely* optimized, with tweaks for specific processor revisions in some cases (not the entire family, such as core 2 duo).
the gimp does not do that, and it shows. it was designed by geeks for other geeks, with very little optimizations and nowhere close to what adobe does.
ui/ux design is *not* simple, nor are code optimizations.
the gimp might 'do the job', but it does so in a less than ideal way, requiring more steps and processing it slower on the same hardware which makes the user less productive.
03/13/2014-
-
-
