Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion

In article , Neil
wrote:


Many plugins are very useful, but some such as On1 Photo RAW are
making
an attempt to take on the entire RAW workflow and have yet, in my
opinion, to get the bugs wringed out.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.

You haven't a clue as to what is required to automate my workflow.

since you haven't described your workflow, how could i?

One excellent reason why you should have kept quiet.

not at all. you described a process that takes hours or days. rejecting
suggestions to improve that makes no sense. newsgroups are for
exchanging ideas and learning new things which you apparently do not
want to do. your loss.

It's another one of your erroneous assumptions that the time required is
the result of my "workflow". It's not. I have no need or interest in
discussing such things with someone who comes to conclusions steeped in
ignorance. THAT would be a waste of time that I choose not to lose.

you've yet to demonstrate what the bottleneck is.

something that takes hours or days to complete is almost certainly in
need of optimization.

all i said was that you should investigate automation plug-ins.

And, the effort spent doing that would not be more than what is needed
to write my own apps? How do you know that?

common sense.

Wrong. Common sense requires a knowledge of context, and you have
clearly demonstrated that you lack that knowledge.

other way around.

investigating how to automate an existing workflow will absolutely be
less effort than writing a whole new app, which i never suggested in
the first place. you're arguing over what was never said.

if you explain your workflow, then people (not just me) can give you
suggestions how to improve it.

When and if I need such help, I know where to get it. I guarantee that
it won't be from the likes of you.

good, because i have absolutely no interest in helping you whatsoever
and you couldn't afford me even if i did.

You're right about that. You are an unnecessary expense, and I can't
afford that kind of thing.

that much is clear, which is why you settle for second rate solutions.

at least we agree on that.

or you can live in a cave doing it the hard way. your choice.

With your admitted lack of knowledge about what is required, how did you
arrive at the conclusion that I'm doing it "the hard way"?

because of your stubbornness and flat out refusal to hear suggestions
on improving what you're doing.

I simply don't need opinions based in ignorance for any reason. I will
continue to stubbornly reject such viewpoints.

suit yourself.

that tells me that you're stuck in your ways and have *not* looked at
ways to improve it.

That is yet another assumption based in ignorance and audacity.

it's based on your comments, attitude and sheer arrogance.

fresh eyes are always a good thing. worst case they say 'yep, you've
tried everything'. best case, you learn how to drastically increase
your productivity.

As I said, I have resources that actually know what they're talking
about. I don't need you.

it sure doesn't look that way, particularly given that all you know are
apps and that's probably all they do too. your loss.

Your
erroneous presumption that some generic app is going to be better at
doing that than one that addresses its specific requirements is absurd.

i never said anything about using a generic app. you made that up.

Any app that would be generally available is generic, by definition.

i did not say a generally available app. you made that up.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "...you need something
to automate your workflow..." that would be the equivalent of that which
I would write. If it isn't an app, what is it? If it isn't generally
available, where is it? You're just spinning and demonstrating, yet
again, that you can't admit when you're wrong. Nobody needs that kind of
input.

i already explained that. if you spent as much time reading what i
wrote than arguing, you might actually learn something.

perhaps you can ask your resources who supposedly know what they're
talking about to explain it to you, since you clearly haven't a clue.

i was specifically referring to automating whatever it is you do, which
you refuse to describe, likely because it's so primitive and you'd be
embarrassed to say.

You just can't resist making such ignorant comments, can you?

nothing ignorant about that. if you were proud of your super-optimized
workflow, you'd talk about how you've tweaked it as much as possible.

To you? You must be kidding.

to the newsgroup, where various people can offer ideas and suggestions.

as i said, newsgroups are for an exchange of ideas. people learn from
each other.

except you, who thinks he knows everything and refuses any new ideas.

one thing is clear, however, that you lied about not using plug-ins,
given that you admitted that you write your own.

I don't write plug-ins, nor did I say so.

yes you did:
then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

Wrong. I don't write plug-ins.

then why did you say you did? you've just admitted you lied.

I answered your comment
suggesting "...something to automate your workflow...", which would not
be a plug-in. I do write apps, and it's solely your problem that you
don't know the difference.

i never said anything about writing apps.

You responded to MY comment about writing apps. What did you think you
were talking about?

no i didn't.

the topic was *plug-ins*:

Many plugins are very useful, but some such as On1 Photo RAW are
....
I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

you said you haven't found plug-ins to be useful given that your
process takes days, so i said you're looking at the wrong sort of
plug-ins.

*nowhere* did anyone mention apps and your attempt to change that is
not going to fly because everyone can see you're lying.


automation can be done with a plug-in as well as scripts and other
techniques. there are many options, which you are clearly not aware of.

your refusal to learn something new says a lot, and none of it good.

You have no knowledge of what I am aware of, so your attacks are
meaningless. You have nothing to offer, and are simply upset that some
of us know that about you.

i can tell by your repeated contradictory statements, your stubbornness
to learn from others and your immense arrogance that you *don't* know
anywhere near as much as you think you do.

Eric Stevens:
There is also a standard seascape which seems to be very popular at
the moment. Rocks in the foreground, an island or a rock on the
horizon, sunrise/sunset, fizzed up sky and long exposure to blur the
sea. The first fifty or so of these can look quite good.

Agreed. But I had seen my first 50 fifty years ago.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 1/23/2017 6:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.


Absolutely. An automated workflow will make spontaneous changes without
any input from the artist.
Yep! Sure it will.

whoooooooooooooooooooosh


Ah! You just got a haircut.


--
PeterN

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:18:36 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/23/2017 2:24 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

You should take his disclaimer with a pinch of salt and continue
reading, it is, as I said an interesting opinion. Particularly coming
from an individual who has made a career of promoting post
processing/photo editing software and various plugins.

Well, I did start reading beyond his disclaimer, and soon realized
that it was an article abut the use of plug-ins. So, he was right, the
article isn't intended for folks like me who have been editing images
digitally for at least a decade before the first plug-in was
introduced. So, I don't use them at all.

It is a bit more than that considering where some software has gone and
that many of the RAW processors do much the same thing. Today digital
photographers have a much wider software choice when it comes to
processing and editing their digital images. The trick is simplifying
the workflow so as not to create a quagmire to be bogged down with. I
have been as guilty of this as the next guy, but I have been controlling
myself to simplify my workflow and only use specific plugins if I have
something in mind for a particular image.

Many plugins are very useful, but some such as On1 Photo RAW are making
an attempt to take on the entire RAW workflow and have yet, in my
opinion, to get the bugs wringed out.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.


Absolutely. An automated workflow will make spontaneous changes without
any input from the artist.
Yep! Sure it will.

They did when I wrote them :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/23/2017 7:40 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


Many plugins are very useful, but some such as On1 Photo RAW are
making
an attempt to take on the entire RAW workflow and have yet, in my
opinion, to get the bugs wringed out.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.

You haven't a clue as to what is required to automate my workflow.

since you haven't described your workflow, how could i?

One excellent reason why you should have kept quiet.

not at all. you described a process that takes hours or days. rejecting
suggestions to improve that makes no sense. newsgroups are for
exchanging ideas and learning new things which you apparently do not
want to do. your loss.

It's another one of your erroneous assumptions that the time required is
the result of my "workflow". It's not. I have no need or interest in
discussing such things with someone who comes to conclusions steeped in
ignorance. THAT would be a waste of time that I choose not to lose.

you've yet to demonstrate what the bottleneck is.

I didn't say that there was a bottleneck. That is your ignorant
assumption about my workflow.

something that takes hours or days to complete is almost certainly in
need of optimization.

Really. How long do you think it *should* take to 3D print a full-sized
car, for just one example of the work I do? Your ignorance is
well-established at this point, and the idiotic notion that your
opinions based on a total lack of information has any value whatsoever
is useless nonsense.

Once again, good bye.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Oh, wait. I see the problem.

you looked in a mirror?

Examples of my output have appeared here many times. I'm not afraid
or ashamed to provide them.

nor am i, just not here.

My workflow is simple. Open it, adjust
it where and if necessary, and save it.

that might work ok for one photo, but not so well for batch processing.

and there's no need to explicitly save, so it could actually be simpler.

In article , Neil
wrote:


Many plugins are very useful, but some such as On1 Photo RAW are
making
an attempt to take on the entire RAW workflow and have yet, in my
opinion, to get the bugs wringed out.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images
requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no
economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need
something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.

You haven't a clue as to what is required to automate my workflow.

since you haven't described your workflow, how could i?

One excellent reason why you should have kept quiet.

not at all. you described a process that takes hours or days. rejecting
suggestions to improve that makes no sense. newsgroups are for
exchanging ideas and learning new things which you apparently do not
want to do. your loss.

It's another one of your erroneous assumptions that the time required is
the result of my "workflow". It's not. I have no need or interest in
discussing such things with someone who comes to conclusions steeped in
ignorance. THAT would be a waste of time that I choose not to lose.

you've yet to demonstrate what the bottleneck is.

I didn't say that there was a bottleneck. That is your ignorant
assumption about my workflow.

nothing ignorant about that.

there's always a bottleneck.

something that takes hours or days to complete is almost certainly in
need of optimization.

Really. How long do you think it *should* take to 3D print a full-sized
car, for just one example of the work I do?

that depends on a number of factors, which you refuse to disclose.

Your ignorance is
well-established at this point, and the idiotic notion that your
opinions based on a total lack of information has any value whatsoever
is useless nonsense.

more babble.

i can't help but notice your total avoidance of discussing apps versus
automation, among other things.

Once again, good bye.

if only.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Oh, wait. I see the problem.

you looked in a mirror?

Examples of my output have appeared here many times. I'm not afraid
or ashamed to provide them.

nor am i, just not here.

So you claim.

i do, and plenty of people have seen them.

My workflow is simple. Open it, adjust
it where and if necessary, and save it.

that might work ok for one photo, but not so well for batch processing.

Actually, it works quite well for the volume I process.

that's nice.

other people have different needs.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

something that takes hours or days to complete is almost certainly in
need of optimization.

Really. How long do you think it *should* take to 3D print a full-sized
car, for just one example of the work I do?

that depends on a number of factors, which you refuse to disclose.

Again, the hypocrite. nospam just posted that he will show his
photographs and reveal his workflow, but not here. But, he criticizes
others for choosing not to post the same information.

more of your lies and twists.

i've discussed my workflow many times, and every time i do, you bash it.

it's also not the topic under discussion either.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Oh, wait. I see the problem.

you looked in a mirror?

Examples of my output have appeared here many times. I'm not afraid
or ashamed to provide them.

nor am i, just not here.

So you claim.

i do, and plenty of people have seen them.

So you claim.

are you accusing me of lying?