nospam
In article <kf39k95l1b479it296vsu6elhun8kb6f5j@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Tony Cooper
As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an uncomplicated and efficient system.

nospam
it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

Eric Stevens
Why learn a new way of doing something when you can laready do it without much apparent difficulty?

nospam
because the productivity increase is huge and the amount of time to learn something new is small (often negligible).

why buy a newer and faster computer? your old 486 could do things without any apparent difficulty.

maybe you have more free time than you know what to do with, but most people don't, which is why choosing the most efficient and productive way to do what needs to be done is a good idea and that *doesn't* mean compromising the results, as certain people here claim.

i'm getting the same (or better) results in *far* less time with lightroom than i ever did with photoshop, and i can still use photoshop for the occasional images that need additional work. overall, it's a huge, huge productivity boost.

Eric Stevens
For a time saving you describe as *far* less you must be processing an awful lot of photographs. How come you never have any to show?

nospam
several reasons, none of which change the points i make. whether someone can be more productive in lightroom has *nothing* to do with how good or bad my photos are.