Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 04/06/2014 08:44 (04/06/2014 02:44) |
| Message-ID | <060420140244441681%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
In article <87mwfzp05k.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:
not as effectively or as efficiently as with other software.Floyd L. DavidsonBobFloyd 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?
What he says has zero significance. The fact is he can't use it effectively, and others can.
At a lower level it is probably quite true that other software is easier to learn, up to a level that is sufficient for those who merely want to be "sufficient".other software is not only easier to learn but users are more productive and can produce far better results in less time.
that makes the gimp 'sufficient' and other software 'powerful'.
If you want perfection and work at the extreme ends, things become a lot different. Linux allows a great deal of flexibility that simply cannot be accomplished with any ease using Windows. A Mac is inbetween.nonsense.
whatever you can do in the gimp can be done in less time on a mac or windows system using any of a wider variety of software.
linux users don't have any of those options. they're stuck with the gimp. it's all they know.
GIMP is just fine, for a perfectionist. It's holy terror for those who only need to skim the surface.more nonsense.
04/05/2014-
