In article , Eric Stevens 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.

Sandman:
No, that's calculated in. I.e.even after including the time it
takes "learned" Lightroom, you're still ahead in terms of
efficiency.

I suppose that's true if you process your images while you learn.

Nope, even if it's a seperate process.

I was thinking of learning first and then processing your target images.

As was I:

Sandman:
For the record - Lightroom is super easy to ue and learn. You can
be up and running in five minutes and then learn new things while
using it.

Eric Stevens:
In the examples I quoted (which you snipped) very little new
learning was required.

Sandman:
Sure it was, you spoke about new versions of the operating system,
that can require at least as much learning as Lightroom to use to
its full extent.

The only occasions I can remember where I had to put some effort
into learning the operating system was at my first contact with
Windows 3 and later with NT4. The progress up the chain to W7 took
relatively little efort.

Then I guess you haven't upgraded to Windows 8, which would be the
contemporary version in this discussion. It requires some heavy duty
rethinking in many areas.

Eric Stevens:
It was old and familiar software, with a few new bells and
whistles, riding on a faster horse.

Sandman:
In what way is Windows 8 "old and familliar" to a Windows XP user?

I will tell you when I get W8. Are you implying that it is so
considerably different I will have to start learning about it from
the ground up? If it is like that it might be enough to drive me to
OSX.

Windows 8 requires you to learn a whole lot of new things, yes. I won't be
comparing it to anything specific, but there's a lot of new stuff and ways
to do stuff in W8.



--
Sandman[.net]