Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 04/19/2014 01:41 (04/18/2014 19:41) |
| Message-ID | <180420141941345035%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
In article <u3b3l9ldmsjekq33ua7vucvs6rj3vmovid@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
given that lightroom didn't exist then, what i was doing was the most effective workflow at the time.Eric StevensnospamEric StevensSandmanSandman
Classic troll diversion. You have yet to tell us how it is *evident* that:1. It has improved his workflow 2. His workflow was previously ineffectiveEric Stevens
That nospam claims this is evident from his writings.
Classic unsubstantiated claim. Please quote nospam claiming that his workflow was previously ineffective, please. Merely claiming stuff won't get you anywhere.
Have you not noticed the paen of praise for the enormous effect Light Room has had on his work flow emerging from nospam?
that doesn't mean what i did before was ineffective. that's nothing but a straw man.
'Effectiveness' or 'ineffectiveness' is a matter of relativity.
however, at the time, there was no lightroom so that's not relevant.nospamEric Stevens
before lightroom, my workflow was the best it could be at the time, given what was available.
And compared with your post-Lightroom work flow it was relatively ineffective.
what i did then would be ineffective now because there are much better ways to do things.
in the future, lightroom may be considered to be a clunky and inefficient workflow after something new comes along, but until that happens, lightroom is about the best there is for the majority of users.
that's what i said originally.nospamEric Stevens
after lightroom, my workflow became more productive.
I can accept that.
04/05/2014-
