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.

Jeffery Small
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?

nospam
neither.

Bob
So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with good results?

nospam
definitely not.

Bob
Hum, it looks like you keep changing your mind, or did you mean to say 'both' rather than 'neither'?

nospam
not only is the gimp not at all efficient in what it does do, but it can't do a lot of things that other software has been doing for *years* and given its road map, it won't ever be doing.

Bob
And? Isn't that true of all software? What about the things Gimp can do that no other software does as well?

If all software were exactly the same, why would we give them different names? BTW, with BABL and GEGL written, expect future Gimp to be a very different story. Even though they haven't been fully integrated into Gimp yet, I've found them to be quite elegant, useful and powerful.

Does it bother you that many of us can use Gimp and other non-Adobe software happily and productively, or that someone else might try it and like it?

I don't own a $50,000 Hasselblad. Since that Hasselblad can very likely do things my cameras can't, should I stop using the ones I have? -- even though my cameras can do things the Hasselblad can't? Just wondering.