Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Alan Browne |
| Date | 2014-04-06 16:32 (2014-04-06 10:32) |
| Message-ID | <MN-dnTa9_ano-NzOnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Bob |
On 2014.04.05, 23:06 , Bob wrote:
BobYou're being trite and silly. If you're happy with the Gimp then be happy.
In article <vq2dnYUPu5SvBt3OnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>wrote:Alan BrowneBob
On 2014.04.05, 19:40 , Bob wrote:BobAlan Browne
In article <050420141924548286%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:nospamBob
[ ... ]Jeffery Smallnospam
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.
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?
I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v. Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy.
And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...
One exercise, optimally sharpening (USM) a finished image, is but one of many examples I can use to show that the Gimp is a poor user experience for photographers. Yes - you can achieve the desired end for many things - just not as quickly or efficiently as in PS. (and yes, sufficient cherry picking will fine exceptions).
And so does that make those of us that don't have the problems with Gimp that you do dumber?
You'll notice in my reply to the OP that I pointed out what I believed to be the issue. But, no, you latch on to criticism of the Gimp rather than help the OP. Really? If you're such a Gimp pro why didn't you help him rather than criticize my reply?
The real issue is that Photoshop for all its evil corporate ownership and high price is a far better photography tool than the Gimp.
If the Gimp were even 90% of what Photoshop CSx was, then droves of starving photographers and graphics artists and startup companies would leap to it.
But they don't. 'Cause it isn't. And never will be.
-- ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term for the services these companies offer. What they really want is to have us "on the leash." -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02
2014-04-05-
