Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:21:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
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.

Agreed, but there is a learning time.

it's not as long as you might think.


And it's so easy, that Scott Kelby makes a small fortune inteaching how
to use it.

so what?

a lot of people make fortunes teaching a lot of things that are fairly
easy to do. some people need handholding and others do not.

if you need tutorials, so be it. and there are better sources than
kelby or marguilis. try bruce fraser, katrin eismann, martin evening or
barry haynes.

Which of these would you particularly recommend?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:56:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

So now you know what I do. My original claim stands. Your statement
about the learning curve of PC & LR could only be made either by somone
who has not really used them, or who is a compplete bull****er. I was
wrong in giving you thebenefit of the doubt.

no. you were just wrong, and still are.

as i said, ask those who use both apps. they'll tell you what i'm
telling you.

I use both, and I agree that LR streamlines the workflow.

tell that to tony

But PS is not
easy to learn, and I had a short learning curve to adapt to LR.

the workflow is slightly different but the payoff is huge

But
since you like quick and dirty processing, why don't you use the many
color curves in LAB. Ater all you can apply a curve into a channel in
LAB and get far more precise results than you can in ACR.

i don't like working in lab and do not find any advantage whatsoever,
both in results and workflow.

dan marguilis is one of the biggest proponents of the workflow, and
after reading his book, i was very unimpressed. it all can be done in
rgb just as easily and likely with better results because you skip two
conversions (which are not lossless).

But doesn't the Adobe color engine work in Lab anyway?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 17 Apr 2014 11:44:23 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Classic troll diversion. You have yet to tell us how it is
*evident* that:

1. It has improved his workflow 2. His workflow was previously
ineffective

OK...just for ****s and giggles I'll concede this point and revise
my statements:

1. The use of LR has not improved nospam's workflow at all. It's
as creaky and useless as it was before.

Classic troll unsusbstantiated excplicit claim about another poster.

It's a postulate.

2. His workflow was not ineffective before, it was simply the best
that could be done under the GIGO rule.

Classic troll unsusbstantiated excplicit claim about another poster.

Again, Tony's statement is a postulate.

I'll let nospam correct whichever one of us that he wants to
correct.

This confirms that the two statements are postulates.

Maybe you should just stop making claims you can't support, so you don't
have to be corrected ALL. THE. TIME?

He hasn't made claims.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4/17/2014 5:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:56:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

So now you know what I do. My original claim stands. Your statement
about the learning curve of PC & LR could only be made either by somone
who has not really used them, or who is a compplete bull****er. I was
wrong in giving you thebenefit of the doubt.

no. you were just wrong, and still are.

as i said, ask those who use both apps. they'll tell you what i'm
telling you.

I use both, and I agree that LR streamlines the workflow.

tell that to tony

But PS is not
easy to learn, and I had a short learning curve to adapt to LR.

the workflow is slightly different but the payoff is huge

But
since you like quick and dirty processing, why don't you use the many
color curves in LAB. Ater all you can apply a curve into a channel in
LAB and get far more precise results than you can in ACR.

i don't like working in lab and do not find any advantage whatsoever,
both in results and workflow.

dan marguilis is one of the biggest proponents of the workflow, and
after reading his book, i was very unimpressed. it all can be done in
rgb just as easily and likely with better results because you skip two
conversions (which are not lossless).

But doesn't the Adobe color engine work in Lab anyway?


I am ignoring his comment. Yes you can sometimes achieve the same effect
in RGB, but it takes a lot more steps.

--
PeterN

On 4/17/2014 5:14 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

And it's so easy, that Scott Kelby makes a small fortune inteaching how
to use it.

so what?

a lot of people make fortunes teaching a lot of things that are fairly
easy to do. some people need handholding and others do not.

if you need tutorials, so be it. and there are better sources than
kelby or marguilis. try bruce fraser, katrin eismann, martin evening or
barry haynes.

If it was that easy tutorials would not be needed.

some people need them. others don't. you are obviously the former.


Do learn to read. I have never purchased a Scott Kelby, but I own
several and unabashedly admit that I watch a lot of web tutorials. I
guess I am not as good an artist as you.

--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you need tutorials, so be it. and there are better sources than
kelby or marguilis. try bruce fraser, katrin eismann, martin evening or
barry haynes.

Which of these would you particularly recommend?

for photoshop, bruce fraser, katrin eismann and martin evening.

i don't have any book recommendations for lightroom, although julianne
kost's videos have some good tips.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Agreed. I ony mentioned that because there is someone here who keeps
insisting PS and LR are easy to learn.

for the basic stuff they definitely are.

that's part of their design, where someone can get results right away
without spending weeks learning the app, but as they work with it, they
learn more about what can be done and how to unleash its true
capabilities.

for example, in lightroom, drag a bunch of images to it to import, make
some adjustments if desired (individually or batch), rate the images
and reject the duds, choose the best of the bunch and and then export
them to jpeg or even upload directly to facebook or flickr or whatever.
it doesn't get much easier.

Isn't that basically what one does in Photoshop?

basically yes, but its the workflow that differs.

I rate or delete the
images in Bridge, and then open them in PS in groups. In LR, the
images are exported as .jpgs (or whatever), and in PS the images are
saved as .jpgs (or whatever). I wouldn't know if PS uploads to
Facebook or Flickr because both are a ten foot pole away.

i don't do the latter two either, but millions of others do.

With baseball shots, I do use LR as you describe except for the F/F
uploads. I use two different keywords: Baseball 2014 and Baseball
2014D. The first is for all that kept, the second is for the ones
I'll use on the end-of-season disk for all parents of the team
members.

ok

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But
since you like quick and dirty processing, why don't you use the many
color curves in LAB. Ater all you can apply a curve into a channel in
LAB and get far more precise results than you can in ACR.

i don't like working in lab and do not find any advantage whatsoever,
both in results and workflow.

dan marguilis is one of the biggest proponents of the workflow, and
after reading his book, i was very unimpressed. it all can be done in
rgb just as easily and likely with better results because you skip two
conversions (which are not lossless).

But doesn't the Adobe color engine work in Lab anyway?

internally, but that's not the same as making a conversion of the image
twice.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I use both, and I agree that LR streamlines the workflow.

tell that to tony

No need to. I understand it can and does streamline the workflow for
many users. I've never argued that point.

That does not mean that every user will gain a significant enough
benefit from that streamlined workflow to make a difference to them.

i never said every single user would.

nothing is a perfect solution for every user. it's yet another straw
man of yours.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Yes you can sometimes achieve the same effect
in RGB, but it takes a lot more steps.

depends on the effect and how you do it.

plus, some effects take longer in lab.