Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 04/06/2014 03:51 (04/05/2014 21:51) |
| Message-ID | <050420142151054543%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Alan Browne |
In article <vq2dnYUPu5SvBt3OnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>wrote:
the gimp is roughly where photoshop was about a decade ago and it still lacks some features that photoshop had *two* decades ago and some things aren't even on its roadmap going forward and will likely never get.Alan BrowneBobFloyd L. Davidsonnospam
Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others.
only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software.
had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw.
I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively?
I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v. Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy.
And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...
meanwhile, photoshop keeps advancing, along with a plethora of other apps, including on mobile devices.
One exercise, optimally sharpening (USM) a finished image, is but one of many examples I can use to show that the Gimp is a poor user experience for photographers. Yes - you can achieve the desired end for many things - just not as quickly or efficiently as in PS. (and yes, sufficient cherry picking will fine exceptions).that's it exactly.
in fact, there are some operations that are an order of magnitude slower in the gimp than with other apps, and on the exact same hardware! plus, the gimp's user interface was designed by geeks (if you can even call it designed), not artists.
in other words, while you 'can' do similar things with the gimp, it takes a lot more hassle and time. who wants that?
it's also important to note that the gimp fanbois haven't other apps (with rare exception), whereas the gimp critics have used the alternatives and have actually compared them side by side.
04/05/2014-
