Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/20/2014 03:32 (04/20/2014 13:32) |
Message-ID | <dn86l9to1e2kaq0tn6rgf1sriuspakri8e@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
SandmanSo all that has to be done is to say that 'ineffective' does not apply.
In article <u3b3l9ldmsjekq33ua7vucvs6rj3vmovid@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensEric Stevensnospam
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.
But the troll offered up only two options, that it was either "creaky and useless" or that it was "ineffective".
Plus - "ineffective" isn't as relative as you want it to be. It means that the method was NOT producing any significant or desired results. "Less effective" and "more effective" is relative. Not "ineffective".
How on earth can you reach that conclusion? --SandmannospamEric 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.
No, just less effective.SandmannospamEric Stevens
after lightroom, my workflow became more productive.
I can accept that.
So you agree with Tony that his workflow before Lightroom was either "creaky and useless" or "ineffective"