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 | <060420140244572451%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
In article <87mwfznguo.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:
nope.Floyd L. DavidsonnospamBobnospamAlan 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.
What 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.
on the very same hardware and doing the same operations, the gimp is anywhere from a little slower to as much as an order of magnitude slower. the skill of the user is irrelevant. this can be measured with a stopwatch.
and then there's the user interface, which for the gimp, is designed by geeks, not artists, so it's an obstacle for those who are artistically inclined. photoshop's interface was designed by the very artists who use it, which is why it's so efficient to use.
For an expert user with critical needs Linux is far better,nonsense.
if that were remotely true, the expert users would pick linux, and they don't. they mostly pick macs for graphic arts, photography, etc.
and GIMP is the equal of anything.more nonsense. the gimp is roughly ten years behind photoshop and still lacks some things that photoshop had 20 years ago.
The biggest difference is that with Linux and GIMP you have to know what you want the software to produce.you have to know what you want with any software.
if you think photoshop or any other software magically figures out what you want then you're dumber than i thought.
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).nonsense.
quality apps are designed so that *everyone* can get good results, regardless of their skill level.
newbies can use the wizards and automatic features while the advanced users can dig as deep as they want and do whatever they want.
the fact that you keep saying that photoshop is suitable for only 'satisfactory results' or 'grandma's photos' shows just how ignorant you are about photoshop and what it can do.
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.maybe you don't, but others know what it does and most of the time it doesn't actually matter. what matters is whether it looks the way the artist wants it to look and obtaining that result with minimal fuss.
With GIMP you have to know which type of a sharpen process will produce the results that you want.same with any other software.
What you get isn't just "It looks better than it did". It looks the way you want it to.same with any other software.
That's creativity in practice, as opposed to throwing paint balls at canvas to creat art.nobody is throwing paint balls at canvas, although that is considered to be art by some.
04/05/2014-
