Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article 2014041400283463795-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

It is not a clone tool. It does not replicate what the clone tool is
capable of. You have to dick around with it to get it to use the area
you want it to use which makes it less effective. Useful for some
things, but not as effective, and certainly not easier to use.

It is not the equal of the PS clone tool, but it is there and when used
judiciously it works. Once you have used it and understand when it
works and when it doesn't, it is reasonably easy to work with. You just
have to understand when you should move to PS as an external editor.
For complex cloning, patching, and where the content aware features
have to come into their own, LR cannot compete. However, for most
editing it does just fine.

not only does it do just fine, but it is easier to use.

the edge cases can always be round-tripped to photoshop, but those are
very rare.

You don't have to preach to the choir. I use LR5 + PS CC, my transition
to LR for performing the bulk of my adjustments/edits started with LR4.
Now I only make the round trip to PS and back when there is an absolute
need for PS tools and/or features.

same here, but certain people just don't get it.

I still have access to the NIK Collection & the OnOne Suite in both LR5
& PS CC. The LR export feature is a more convenient tool for resizing
batches of finished images than anything PS provides, and the same can
be said for the print module.

yep.

as i said, more productive.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

Yeah. Photoshop and Gimp are the same except that Photoshop has
content aware fill.

and a zillion more features.

How long does it take for you to learn a zillion more features?

you don't have to learn every single one of them, but they're there if
you need or want any of them, something a gimp user will not have.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It is not a clone tool. It does not replicate what the clone tool is
capable of. You have to dick around with it to get it to use the area
you want it to use which makes it less effective. Useful for some
things, but not as effective, and certainly not easier to use.

It is not the equal of the PS clone tool, but it is there and when used
judiciously it works. Once you have used it and understand when it
works and when it doesn't, it is reasonably easy to work with. You just
have to understand when you should move to PS as an external editor.
For complex cloning, patching, and where the content aware features
have to come into their own, LR cannot compete. However, for most
editing it does just fine.

not only does it do just fine, but it is easier to use.

the edge cases can always be round-tripped to photoshop, but those are
very rare.

An "edge case" seems to be anything that can't be done easily and
effectively in whatever program nospam is flogging today. A "rare"
case seems to be anything that can't be done that nospam doesn't want
to admit that many people want to do.

wrong. again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever with me or what i
do or do not do.

if you knew the first thing about how lightroom works or how software
is designed you'd understand this.

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Imagine that list after someone switched to Lightroom - and all
the things they're suddely doing quicker, ey?

But only after learning how to use light room.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

I know light room is relatively simple to learn but you have to
process a significant number of photographs to make the time saving
(compared with whatever else it is you know) worth the effort.

But it's still worth the effort, just like in your examples.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:
[ ... ]
I know you will say that Lightroom is easy to learn and is faster then
Gimp. But the question is that if the person does not process a large
number of images, if Lightroom is faster than Gimp, how long will it
take him to claw back the Lightroom learning time through its higher
processing speed?

It seems to me that Lightroom should be compared with
rawtherapee or darktable; not Gimp.

nib

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:
[ ... ]
Yeah. Photoshop and Gimp are the same except that Photoshop has
content aware fill.

I was reading last week that content-aware-fill in
photoshop was actually copied from a Gimp plugin.

In article , lam
wrote:

Yeah. Photoshop and Gimp are the same except that Photoshop has
content aware fill.

I was reading last week that content-aware-fill in
photoshop was actually copied from a Gimp plugin.

you read wrong. adobe doesn't need to copy anything. content-aware fill
was based on research done at princeton university:

https://eqn.princeton.edu/2010/06/patchmatch/
The technology driving the new* photo-editing feature was developed
by Princeton computer science graduate student Connelly Barnes, who
interned three times at Adobe Systems Inc. in Seattle, Washington.

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
The only way to provide proof is to see what you do with images.
So, produce something to work with and I'll see about proof
from there.

nospam:
once again, this isn't about *me*, it's about the apps.

second of all, posting images doesn't prove anything one way or
the other because the benefits of lightroom are outside of what
you might see in an image. you would have no way of knowing
whether someone spent 10 seconds or 10 hours on an image, no
matter what software they used.

Exactly. That's why you don't know if a change to LR would leave
someone all that extra time to do something else.

False logic. If person A usually walks to the store and person B suggests
to use a bicycle to get there faster and bring back more products, then
the veracity of that claim doesn't hinge on person B providing examples of
his own endevours with a bicycle. He may not even own or need a bicycle and
the claim would still remain true.

You're making all about you because - evidently - it's improved your
previously ineffective workflow so you think everyone else must
benefit by doing what you say you do.

How is this "evident", Tony? nospam has said exactly nothing about his own
experience with Lightroom, or if he even uses it. He has made claims about
one software product being more effective at a specific task than another
software product. His claim is backed by many others, and even backed by
the very existence of the product in the first place, given the fact that
both are made by the same company and one is a specialized product for the
very task under discussion.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

nospam:
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)
snip trolling

Classic reading comprehension problems and logic fallacy. The claim of
method A resulting in more X than method B does not imply that method B
results in no X what so ever.

Classic trolling where Tony delibrately misinterpretes what nospam wrote in
order to create an argument.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 14 Apr 2014 14:07:35 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Imagine that list after someone switched to Lightroom - and all
the things they're suddely doing quicker, ey?

But only after learning how to use light room.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I know light room is relatively simple to learn but you have to
process a significant number of photographs to make the time saving
(compared with whatever else it is you know) worth the effort.

But it's still worth the effort, just like in your examples.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens