Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

Why learn a new way of doing something when you can laready do it
without much apparent difficulty?

because the productivity increase is huge and the amount of time to
learn something new is small (often negligible).

You obviously haven't recently tried learning Photoshop from a cold
start. Several months down the track and I've still got a hell of a
lot to learn.

who said anything about learning photoshop or lightroom from a cold
start?

In article , sid
wrote:

So what is delivered with a new Mac that is particularly with a
photographic workflow in mind, that isn't delivered with other OS'

mac os x.

Nothing tangible then?

os x is very tangible and one of the main reasons why people buy macs.

In article , sid
wrote:

No - but it is delivered with photographic workflow in mind - including
in Finder.

So what is delivered with a new Mac that is particularly with a
photographic workflow in mind, that isn't delivered with other OS'

Already described in part by nosapm. Others would include "Coverflow"
(another thing in Finder for very rapidly looking at photos and docs).

Again - it's much easier to experience than to describe.

Well my experience of OSX is different to yours. I have 3 close friends and
2 family members who use macs so I am not unfamiliar with it although I can
only say I've dabbled a bit and I find it clunky and confusing. That's
because I'm used to something else, it's not rocket science.

what about it is confusing?

I am used to using linux, have been for more than 12 years, it's a piece of
**** to install and set up,

no it isn't. if that were true it would not fail the mom test, which it
does. if that were true, linux would be commonly used on the desktop,
which it isn't.

it's free and I can run it on any damn hardware
I please, it's easy to maintain,it's secure, it's smooth and quick in
operation and I can have any of the fancy desktop gizmos that the mac users
seem to covet. What's not to like!

the lack of apps and hardware support, both peripherals and cards.
drivers are usually just mac and windows. linux users are often on
their own to get it to work.

Different to what we are used to does not equate to crap. We'd all be much
more narked if there was no choice and we were all stuck with windows.

it's not crap because it's different, it's crap because it lacks the
ability to run all of the commercial software available for mac and
windows that you can't run unless you use virtualization or something
like wine, the latter of which is a hack that doesn't work all that
well most of the time.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That I didn't know wavelets were already present in Photoshop is a
consequence of their habit of giving names to features and functions
which give no real guide as to what those features or functions might
actually be doing. You will no doubt argue that this is OK as the
average photoshop user will not be able to understand the mechanical
workings of the software even if it is explained to them. They would
rather know that such and such an effect can be achieved with the
gizmo function and have no interest in knowing how it is done.

Exactly. That has been part of the point I have been attempting to
make. Just because Adobe (and some others) have chosen not to give some
features their geekiy and esoteric labels, doesn't mean they are not
employed in their products.

Nor shouldyou take it for granted that they are present if there is no
evidence of their presence.

if it concerns you, it's not hard to find out.

most people haven't any idea what wavelet means nor should they.

that's why photoshop is so capable. you don't need to be an image
processing geek to use it, and for those who are image processing
geeks, they can dig deeper and make it as complex as they want it to
be. it works for users at all levels.

In article 2014040916561314786-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

That I didn't know wavelets were already present in Photoshop is a
consequence of their habit of giving names to features and functions
which give no real guide as to what those features or functions might
actually be doing. You will no doubt argue that this is OK as the
average photoshop user will not be able to understand the mechanical
workings of the software even if it is explained to them. They would
rather know that such and such an effect can be achieved with the
gizmo function and have no interest in knowing how it is done.

Exactly. That has been part of the point I have been attempting to
make. Just because Adobe (and some others) have chosen not to give some
features their geekiy and esoteric labels, doesn't mean they are not
employed in their products.

it also makes the software easier to use, yet retains the power for the
geek users. it's a win-win for everyone.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

why spend more time than necessary doing something?
[ ... ]

Why spend more money than necessary doing something?

nobody said anything about spending more money than necessary and often
times, it will pay for itself anyway.

How does a hobbyist, and - as far as I can tell, all here are
hobbyists - use anything that "pays for itself"? It's all out-go to
us.

do you like to do anything *else* other than use photoshop or lightroom?

using something that makes you more productive means you have more time
to do *other* things.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Why learn a new way of doing something when you can laready do it
without much apparent difficulty?

because the productivity increase is huge and the amount of time to
learn something new is small (often negligible).

That certainly isn't the case if you have to learn something like
photoshop.

it absolutely is the case, however, the payoff may be longer if the new
app is complex. it depends what you're doing and how often you do it.

and this isn't about learning a new app from scratch either. typically
there's a new feature that simplifies what you've been doing before.
for instance, content aware fill can in many cases, drastically reduce
the amount of time needed to retouch a photo, and it's not that hard to
learn how to use it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

maybe you have more free time than you know what to do with, but most
people don't, which is why choosing the most efficient and productive
way to do what needs to be done is a good idea and that *doesn't* mean
compromising the results, as certain people here claim.

i'm getting the same (or better) results in *far* less time with
lightroom than i ever did with photoshop, and i can still use photoshop
for the occasional images that need additional work. overall, it's a
huge, huge productivity boost.

So, you weren't very good with Photoshop. It's a program for
grown-ups, so don't feel badly.

back to your usual ad hominems.

i'm *very* good with photoshop, not that it matters. this isn't about
me.

If you were *very* good with Photoshop, but spend far less time now
with LR, you were either meticulous but slow in PS or are being sloppy
in LR.

nonsense.

Unless, of course, your photos were so bad when you used PS
that they needed a lot of work and you've now improved your shots so
they don't require as much work.

also nonsense.

At the same skill level in both LR and PS, some time might be saved in
LR with a large volume of shots, but "far less time" is a bogus claim.

it's not bogus at all.

Of course, all we have is your word for it for any claim.

feel free to refute whatever i say with proof, not insults. you can't,
which is why you resort to insults.

the key is people can do most things in *less* time using a different
app.

It's wonderful that you have more time now to make all these posts
that contribute nothing, contain nothing interesting, and are mostly
repeating the same old ****. Maybe you should go back to trying to
learn how to use Photoshop.

maybe you should try discussing the topic rather than resorting to
insults. not that i expect that any time soon.

I don't think there's anyone here - including me - who is consistently
more insulting to other people than you are. In just about any
exchange with anyone here, you will end up insulting them if they
don't agree with you. Other than you and Popinjay, I don't insult
anyone very often. Floyd gets on my tits once in a while, but I'm
usually dispassionate in my exchanges with him.

i don't insult people unless they insult me first.

if i disagree with them or think their statements are false and in some
cases ludicrous, i will say so, but i do *not* insult the person unless
they insult first.

On 4/13/2014 9:34 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

Why learn a new way of doing something when you can laready do it
without much apparent difficulty?

because the productivity increase is huge and the amount of time to
learn something new is small (often negligible).

That comment incontrovertibly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of
Photoshop.

no, what it shows is your lack of knowledge of lightroom.

ask anyone who has used both.


You obviously don't. If you did, you owuld not have made that diotic
statement.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

why spend more time than necessary doing something?
[ ... ]

Why spend more money than necessary doing something?

nobody said anything about spending more money than necessary and often
times, it will pay for itself anyway.

How does a hobbyist, and - as far as I can tell, all here are
hobbyists - use anything that "pays for itself"? It's all out-go to
us.

do you like to do anything *else* other than use photoshop or lightroom?

using something that makes you more productive means you have more time
to do *other* things.

If your previous method of post-processing left you with no time to do
anything but edit, then you were a) incapable of learning how to work
effectively with that method, or, b) working on images that were so
badly screwed up in the taking that they had to be reconstructed in
post.

not what i said and complete bull**** anyway.

lightroom does much more than photoshop does, including organization,
exporting in various formats, creating web pages, direct upload to
services and batch processing of images.

photoshop does more than lightroom with retouching and extensive
filters, which is usually not needed for the vast majority of images.
it lacks all the above features.

therefore, lightroom is almost always the more appropriate choice,
eliminating multiple apps to do common tasks, which is why it's so
incredibly popular.

anyone who used it would understand this.