Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 04/06/2014 07:52 (04/05/2014 22:52) |
| Message-ID | <2014040522524022304-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | Floyd L. Davidson (40m) > Savageduck nospam (52m) Bob (16h & 21m) > Savageduck |
On 2014-04-06 05:14:36 +0000, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
Floyd L. DavidsonWhat are these *certain abilities* and *critical needs* folks who do not choose to use Linux lack?
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
On 2014-04-06 03:10:17 +0000, Bob <bob@spam-place.com>said:BobSavageduck
In article <050420142151034433%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:nospamBob
In article <fcOdnSzELcf9Cd3OnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@swcp.com>, Bob <bob@spam-place.com>wrote:nospamBobFloyd 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?
neither.
So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with good results?
Not efficiently, using it is a royal PIA, and other software available for Windows and OSX is superior in all ways.
I suppose for people who lack certain abilities and do not have critical needs, that might appear to be true.
Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family album or to post on Facebook.Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill* snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game.
For those who have higher aspirations there are alternatives that are better.You seem to be taking a somewhat lofty and condescending perch there Floyd.
Better results? Better results than what?SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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.
How about those who only think about the results, and are able to get better results using Linux and GIMP...
I don't do astrophotography,Neither do I.
as an example, but see where many of those who do use Linux and associated tools. And others don't.That's nice.
Correct. It is lacking when compared with PS CS6.CC an LR5.SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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.
GIMP is not the same as "Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom" for you,
but the alternate view is that you simply don't seem able to use GIMP, even when it would do a better job.I can, and have used GIMP. As to doing a better job I disagree.
Who exactly has the problem? You or the program that others can use to do what you can't?Why is it a problem? I don't usually use GIMP, so no problem. What is it that I am not supposed to be able to do?
No. I make my decisions based on what does the job for me in the most efficient manner.SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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.
So you make your decisions according to what you see as the most popular?
Everyone that lacks any idea of what an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy this!Actually that is what I do. It seems that when it comes to image editing software, given the MSRP of GIMP you don't actually buy anything other than very good cameras & glass. You capture decent enough images and your GIMP workflow works for you, but your GIMP/Linux advocacy where you denigrate all who disagree with your choices does nothing to advance your cause. None of the examples of your work which we have seen presents an argument for the superiority of GIMP over any other software. Your sense of superiority over others of us in these photo NGs is misplaced.
I buy what will best produce the results I need.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
04/05/2014-
