Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
From | Tony Cooper |
Date | 04/06/2014 17:10 (04/06/2014 11:10) |
Message-ID | <j5r2k9938ta7rk567flv9k7qpprkl4oe26@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Alan Browne |
Followups | Alan Browne (13m) Floyd L. Davidson (15m) Alan Browne (27m) > Tony Cooper nospam (2h & 22m) > Tony Cooper Jeffery Small (13h & 33m) PeterN (3d, 8h & 55m) |
Alan BrowneIt seems that only Floyd has kept the original poster's question in mind. The poster didn't ask what OS or what software would be an improvement on what he has. He asked what can be done to work with what he has.
On 2014.04.05, 22:59 , Bob wrote:BobAlan Browne
In article <050420142151024366%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:nospamBob
In article <LNWdnRzMcIkGD93OnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@swcp.com>, Bob <bob@spam-place.com>wrote:nospamAlan 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?
Not at all.
I'm saying that the OS' of choice are OS X and Windows and the core tool is Photoshop. And in the communities where they are used (professional photography and graphics arts) they are the expected base tools of the trade. Because of that, there is a lot more support. A lot more 3rd party software. A lot more knowledge.
Linux would be okay for such if Adobe released Photoshop for Linux. But they don't. (It's very low use generally for desktop environments and bare existence amongst photographers doesn't make for a good investment).