Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 04/06/2014 07:53 (04/05/2014 21:53) |
| Message-ID | <87mwfznguo.fld@apaflo.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (51m) |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:
nospamWhat needs to be added is that it is only true for those who are unable or unwilling (as in having no reason) to become expert in its use.
In article <Huedne5eVp5nX93OnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@swcp.com>, Bob <bob@spam-place.com>wrote:nospamBobnospamAlan BrowneBob
All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp.
Why would you write this?
he wrote it because it's true.
So you're both saying that it's not possibile to produce good photos using Linux and Gimp?
nobody said that it's impossible.
what is being said is that the gimp is inefficient, slow and clunky, with the alternatives leaving it in the dust.
For an expert user with critical needs Linux is far better, and GIMP is the equal of anything. The biggest difference is that with Linux and GIMP you have to know what you want the software to produce. With most other software there has been significant effort put into showing a user how to produce "satisfactory results" (which is just annoying cruft for an expert).
With some software you have a slider for "sharpness", and by looking at the image it can be adjusted to get a "sharper" image. Wow! It looks better than it did, and that's wonderful. But you have no idea what it did, or if something else could be better. With GIMP you have to know which type of a sharpen process will produce the results that you want. What you get isn't just "It looks better than it did". It looks the way you want it to. That's creativity in practice, as opposed to throwing paint balls at canvas to creat art.
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
04/05/2014-
