Savageduck
On 2014-04-06 03:10:17 +0000, Bob <bob@spam-place.com>said:

Bob
In article <050420142151034433%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:

nospam
In article <fcOdnSzELcf9Cd3OnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@swcp.com>, Bob <bob@spam-place.com>wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson
Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others.

nospam
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.

Bob
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?

nospam
neither.

Bob
So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with good results?

Savageduck
Not efficiently, using it is a royal PIA, and other software available for Windows and OSX is superior in all ways.

However, some GIMP users who have no desire to use Win or OSX, and only think open source freeware have been able to produce acceptable images.

I have a copy of GIMP 2.8.2 on this Mac which I visit from time to time to remind me just why I don't include it in my image processing workflow. Regardless of the claims of GIMP evangelists/advocates it is not the equal of Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom. There are also some other affordable and very powerful image editing apps available for OSX (I don't check on Win stuff) which put GIMP in the shade.

So while GIMP might suffice for you, Floyd, and other single minded Linux users, it doesn't do it for me, and the great majority individuals in the graphics and digital imaging world. If I didn't use PS/CC and LR5, I would buy the $29.99 Pixelmator to use before I made GIMP part of my daily workflow.