Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 04/06/2014 09:47 (04/06/2014 00:47) |
| Message-ID | <201404060047514157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | nospam (4h & 21m) |
On 2014-04-06 06:33:24 +0000, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
Floyd L. DavidsonPS & LR workflow is quite customizable. It is scriptable, actions can be written, presets created, and more.
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
On 2014-04-06 05:14:36 +0000, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:Floyd L. DavidsonSavageduck
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.
What are these *certain abilities* and *critical needs* folks who do not choose to use Linux lack?
Customized workflow is just the start.
I can't imagine taking the time necessary to properly process images on Windows or OSX. (In the way I want them processed, not the way others do or you do.)I guess that is because you have never used either OS.
You haven't checked on Photoshop lately have you?Floyd L. DavidsonWindows and OSX are probably vastly superior for producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family album or to post on Facebook.Savageduck
Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They
As for example using Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper to filter resampling algorithms? :-)
I don't claim to be a creator of great photographic art. However, what I produce I do with deliberation and thought to reach satisfying results. Not everything I share is perfect, sometime there are problems. Sometimes I find a solution to a particular problem, many times I don't, but I have no problem sharing those image to see if there is something I can learn from constructive criticism. So is there a particular image of mine which you can point to with particular distain?SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill* snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game.Floyd L. DavidsonSavageduck
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.
Compared to what you've posted???? Get real.
I have yet to see evidence of that, presented by you or any other GIMP acolyte.Floyd L. DavidsonSavageduckSavageduckFloyd 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...
Better results? Better results than what?
Than they can using other software.
My understanding and ability use a particular piece of software is no problem at all. Once more your peculiar arrogant and condescending attitude towards those who don't kowtow to your way of thinking is obvious.Floyd L. DavidsonSavageduckSavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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,
Correct. It is lacking when compared with PS CS6.CC an LR5.
It lacks what *you* can understand and use. That's a personal problem, eh?
Why would I need to once I have determined that I have software which does a better job for ME?Floyd L. Davidsonbut the alternate view is that you simply don't seem able to use GIMP, even when it would do a better job.Savageduck
I can, and have used GIMP. As to doing a better job I disagree.
But you can't figure out how to use it effectively...
A problem that others don't have.Other Linux-GIMP users, not exactly a large sampling. The only non-Linux users using GIMP are those frugal folks mining the open source freeware well.
I say I find GIMP lacking when it doesn't fit MY workflow. Obviously it is a perfect match for you.Floyd L. DavidsonWho exactly has the problem? You or the program that others can use to do what you can't?Savageduck
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?
One would think you would be able to ascertain where the problem is and avoid petty bias in discussing this topic. If you don't want to use GIMP that is fine, but not when you say that because you are unable to use it effectively means others should avoid it despite the fact that it clearly can be very effectively used and is extremely efficient for those who do.
The reality is, while GIMP is a capable editor, it is not as good as you claim it to be when compared with digital imaging software available for Win or OSX. It is undoubtably the best you have available to run under Linux.
So you are privy to my personal limitations are you? Damn! You must be an astute and perceptive reader of character.Floyd L. DavidsonSavageduckSavageduckFloyd 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?
No. I make my decisions based on what does the job for me in the most efficient manner.
And blame your personal limitations on others.
I made my buying choices after serious and deliberate consideration including taking a hard look at GIMP. You made yours based on what would fit your Linux model, without even running any of the Win or OSX software. You seem to be quite ignorant of the current capabilities and features of PS CS6/CC.Floyd L. DavidsonEveryone that lacks any idea of what an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy this! I buy what will best produce the results I need.Savageduck
Actually that is what I do.
You might, but when you advise others that is not what you say.
Nice rationalization there.SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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.
Oh? In fact it is more. You buy into a system that requires a great deal of learning, no matter which it is. It may also, if you do have a need for the effectiveness described, need hardware that matches. There's no free lunch.
Like the trash talk you heap on non-Linux and non-GIMP users.SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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.
I don't care if you find another program better for your uses. I'm not saying that other programs are useless, ineffective, and all the other trash talk that *you* heap on choices other than your own.
I'm not the one dumping on other's choices...The only one trash talking here is you. I can and have used GIMP, but I certainly don't use it now.
I am dumping on your habit of trash talking anything you can't or don't use.
No! Just check this thread, particularly a few lines above where you say; "Compared to what you've posted???? Get real."SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
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 don't recall dumping on your work, or suggesting mine is superior to anyones.
Seems you have a real problem with justifying yourself as an individual.Not me. I know my limitations as a photographer, and my post processing skills, and yet I seem to be able to produce a few quite acceptable images, for both print and online sharing.
But it is true that I don't mind at all if my own photography is used as an example of what can be done with Linux and GIMP. Whatever it may or may not be, it certainly isn't non-existant which your claims suggest!Where did I claim that your work was "non-existant" (sic)? What I claimed is that nothing you have presented to us supports your argument that GIMP post processing is in anyway superior (as you claim) to any other software. What you have shown us is not in anyway extraordinary photographic art work. No better or worse than examples posted by some of the more competent and decently equipped shooters in this room.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
04/05/2014-
