O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

What I can't figure out is why you people that have no knowledge or
experience with computers still choose to pick a fight with people that
have worked with this for decades.

i wonder the same thing.

they just like to argue for the sake of argument. i think they get off
by seeing their own posts.

It does seem to me - judging by the multitude of posts from the two of
you - that you and Sandman are quite willing to join in just for the
sake of argument.

only because there are so many ignorant posts from people pretending
they know what they're talking about and saying incorrect and very
stupid things.

On 8/9/2013 11:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 09:39:09 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

By using "your way" as you outlined he

Tony Cooper


"I put the same image in several folders by using "Copy to:"

Where you clearly said that for a photo to appear in more than one
place, you copy the file on the hard drive. This is hilariously stupid
on its own, and nospam made an example where this workflow's worst side
is exposed - i.e. when you use it to organize your photos based on
criteria in the photographs.

Where do you get "criteria in the photographs"?

What doesn't you understand? It was outline in the example.

I doesn't understand what you're reading. I copy an image to a folder
based on the intended use of that image. The "example" was on a
non-related requirement to link a photo by some aspect *in* the image.
Since I don't do what's in the example, the use of "when you use to
organize your photos base on criteria in the photos" is completely
incorrect and, as you are wont to say, irrelevant.


Any photos I copy to a separate folder are copied to that folder for
the *use* to which I intend to put them. They are placed in that
folder as final edits that will be used to post to a forum or
somesuch. The criterion for each is the end use, not the variables
in the content.

Which is irrelevant to the example.

And, the example is irrelevant to what I do.


The photo in that separate folder may be different from the photo used
in Lightroom.

For no good reason.

Some forums and contests require a certain size for the
image that is not the size that I want to retain as the original in
LR.

Which is why LR has an export command to deal with such matters without
the need for you to do it manually.

There's that plug-in again that allows you to use Lightroom by mind
control. In my Lightroom, I can enter the width and height in the
export sequence, but I have to do that manually. Keyboard strokes are
used just as the manual keyboard strokes are used when not in
Lightroom to do the same thing.

Once the dimensions and other characteristics of the export are set, you
can export one photo or a million without touching them again.

If you're not using Lightroom to deal with images in quantity you
probably don't need it to begin with.


Bingo!
I shoot between 30 & 400 images on a shoot. They are viewed and probably
over 90% discarded. That does not make for processing a lot of images.
LR is great for some photographers, but I foundit does nothing for me.


--
PeterN

On 8/9/2013 12:07 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Just the opposite. tony Cooper says how he works. You say how "most
people' work, without any documentation, or room for variables.

I assume you didn't see the amazingly craptacular workflow Tony is
employing and thus can't begin to understand just how out of whack he is
from the "most people" realm. It was hilarious and disturbing to see the
hoops he would jump through that normal people just don't have to think
about at all.

For him it's a hobby.

No, it's a train wreck. It's a hobby as much as someone continuously
banging his head with a hammer is a "hobby".

And you earlier claimed not to have triedto dictate workflow?

1. Me criticizing someone doing something wrong doesn't constitute me
dictating workflow

As I said earlier, unless you fully understand his needs, you cannot say
he's wrong.

You'd have a point if I ever said that he was wrong, which I haven't. I
have said that his workflow is amazingly complicated, and unnecessary
so. These claims are 100% correct and does not constitute me dictating
his workflow or even saying that he's doing it wrong. He can continue
using an overcomplicated workflow all he wants, and in fact, I expect
nothing less (in spite of him actually asking to learn how it could be
made easier there is no chance he would ever take my advice - or at
least not tell us he did so).

If you think he's wrong, and understand HIS needs, perhaps a
constructive solution would be in order.

Already given. In spite of me never saying he is wrong.

my personal opinion is that if it is working for him, that's fine with
me.

It's "fine" for me to. How he works has no affect on my what so ever.
But that doesn't mean I can call his workflow horrendous and complicated
(which it is) and that it doesn't have to be (which it doesn't).

My own system is not that much different from his. Systems used by
some of my fellow CC members are similar, with each adjusted to the
maker's workflow.

Then the same applies.



I guess you jjust don't understand the meaning of your statement: "I
assume you didn't see the amazingly craptacular workflow Tony is....."

I will not further educate you on the suitabilities in meaning of the
vernacular.

--
PeterN

On 8/9/2013 12:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 09:07:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

I am not surprised that you have no interest in HDR. However, for your
sports try higher shutter speeds at high ISO. Anytime I have shot
sports, I look for action blurs, and sideline expressions. But then, I
have no grandchildren.

I have no problem with shutter speeds and freezing action. My
problems are mostly around not having a lens that allows me to zoom in
on an individual in that scrum of bodies. It's rare that I get to be
close enough to the action. I have to wait in the end zone and hope
they make to the red zone.

Sometimes I get a sideline expression and treat it a bit different in
post:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsyuhw7o91...1-10-01-07.jpg


That's a nice representation of your grandson.



--
PeterN

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

And you earlier claimed not to have triedto dictate workflow?

1. Me criticizing someone doing something wrong doesn't constitute me
dictating workflow

It's an interesting semantic argument.

Maybe.

If you consider "dictating" to mean "determining what others should
do", then you are not dictating. You have no ability to determine
what others do.

If you consider "dictating" to mean "determining what is the right way
to do something and what is the wrong way to do it", then you are
dictating.

Why would I consider "dictating" to mean "determining what is the right
way to do something"? That's not what "dictating" means. Are you using
your "funny" dictionary now?

Either way, I've done neither. I have called the workflow overly and
unnecessary complicated, which it is. I've called it stupid and
hilarious, but I haven't said that it's wrong. Wrong implies that I know
what is correct, or that there even is a way to determine what is the
right and wrong way.

What one CAN determine is what is a better or worse way to do things
when considering the known factors, which is exactly what I've done.

So, this was yet another lie from you.

snip



--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/9/2013 1:15 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/9/2013 3:17 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:01:14 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

And as you have belatedly agreed the app won't work without the
underlying file system. You have to have a file system.

The word "petard" comes to mind.

Incorrectly so. As usual.

Hah!

A lot of argumentation by exhaling here.

What I can't figure out is why you people that have no knowledge or
experience with computers still choose to pick a fight with people that
have worked with this for decades.

Neither you, PeterN or Tony have any knowledge about databases, file
systems or even computers. They're just tools for you and you know next
to nothing about how they actually work, yet you come here arguing until
you can't breathe and when proven wrong and wrong again you just answer
with "Hah!" and think that somehow reinforces your position?

That's just sad.



It's sad that you make assumptions. Just where is your proof that I have
"knowledge about databases, files systems or even computers"? I
earerly await the facts supporting your statement with bated breath.

Uh, hi Peter. I can't remember to having made any comments about your
lack of knowledge about any of those. COuld you please direct me to that
post so I can review it for myself and get back to you on this?

Thanks in advance!



Read your above paragraph. Yes! I did start the quote with the word:
"knowledge" I should have started the quote with "no knowledge...." Now
that I cleared up my typo, please answer the question.


--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

My own system is not that much different from his. Systems used by
some of my fellow CC members are similar, with each adjusted to the
maker's workflow.

Then the same applies.

I guess you jjust don't understand the meaning of your statement: "I
assume you didn't see the amazingly craptacular workflow Tony is....."

I most certainly do. I think his workflow is crap. I am passing
judgement on his choice of workflow. I am calling it stupid and overly
complicated. But that does not mean I am telling him *how* to do it, nor
does it mean I am saying that his way is *wrong*.

I will not further educate you on the suitabilities in meaning of the
vernacular.

I wouldn't expect that you'd be able to, no.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

If you're not using Lightroom to deal with images in quantity you
probably don't need it to begin with.

Bingo!
I shoot between 30 & 400 images on a shoot. They are viewed and probably
over 90% discarded. That does not make for processing a lot of images.
LR is great for some photographers, but I foundit does nothing for me.

Actually, Lightroom makes the entire review and discard phase much much
easier, especially if you have up to 400 shots in a session.

(Disclaimer: I use Aperture, the above assumes that Lightroom at least
has a comparable review and discard process as Aperture)


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

What I can't figure out is why you people that have no knowledge or
experience with computers still choose to pick a fight with people that
have worked with this for decades.

i wonder the same thing.

they just like to argue for the sake of argument. i think they get off
by seeing their own posts.

It does seem to me - judging by the multitude of posts from the two of
you - that you and Sandman are quite willing to join in just for the
sake of argument.

All I am doing is correcting misinformation (and in your case, lies). I
am not arguing because that requires a receiving end that is able to
understand an argument.

I am explaining, more for the benefit of some third party reader thy may
stumble upon one of you guys posts and mistake it for a factual post.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

It's sad that you make assumptions. Just where is your proof that I have
"knowledge about databases, files systems or even computers"? I
earerly await the facts supporting your statement with bated breath.

Uh, hi Peter. I can't remember to having made any comments about your
lack of knowledge about any of those. COuld you please direct me to that
post so I can review it for myself and get back to you on this?

Read your above paragraph. Yes! I did start the quote with the word:
"knowledge" I should have started the quote with "no knowledge...." Now
that I cleared up my typo, please answer the question.

I was not in reference to the typo (which I was aware of), I kindly
asked you to point me to the post where I made the claim about your
knowledge (or lack thereof) about "databases, files systems or even
computers".

Thanks in advance (again).


--
Sandman[.net]