nospam
In article <uh5mk9p5cdn86ihudskbfp268snjf1umoa@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Sandman
Imagine that list after someone switched to Lightroom - and all the things they're suddely doing quicker, ey?

Eric Stevens
But only after learning how to use light room. In the examples I quoted (which you snipped) very little new learning was required. It was old and familiar software, with a few new bells and whistles, riding on a faster horse.

nospam
very little learning is needed for lightroom. if you've used camera raw in photoshop you already know how to use camera raw in lightroom. that leaves very little left, mostly just how to rate images, work with smart collections, etc., and if you've used bridge it will be fairly familiar.

Eric Stevens
You are (deliberately?) evading the point. We were not considering someone with a background of PS and Bridge having to learn Lightroom. We were considering the problem likely to be encountered by someone with no Adobe background of any kind when coming from Gimp when first encountering Lightroom.

nospam
maybe you are, but that wasn't the original situation and i don't know why you twisted it into something that was never said.

i said lightroom is a productivity boost over photoshop, and it is. ask those who have used both. in fact, that's one of the reasons why it was originally developed.

the gimp was never part of this, ...

... especially since the vast majority of gimp users are using linux and can't ever run photoshop or lightroom anyway. they have the fewest number of apps available. their hands are tied.

Eric Stevens
I know you will say that Lightroom is easy to learn and is faster then Gimp. But the question is that if the person does not process a large number of images, if Lightroom is faster than Gimp, how long will it take him to claw back the Lightroom learning time through its higher processing speed?

nospam
lightroom and gimp are two totally different apps.

the comparison to make is with photoshop and gimp, both image editors.

there is no linux equivalent of lightroom.

Eric Stevens
I know light room is relatively simple to learn but you have to process a significant number of photographs to make the time saving (compared with whatever else it is you know) worth the effort.

nospam
nope. even shooting a dozen photos, the difference is noticeable. obviously the difference is bigger the more you shoot but it really doesn't take that many photos.

Eric Stevens
The time taken to learn to use Lightroom is independent of the number of photographs you take.

nospam
nope. the more photos you take the more you learn about lightroom.

there's a lot of power user features that someone who is processing a few photos might never need or even know about.

that's one characteristic of well designed software - it's easy to use at first, but as you become more proficient, you unleash its true power. it doesn't overwhelm you all at once.