Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

Alan Browne wrote:


The market for desktop users of Linux is less than 2% [1] of the overall
desktop based on web stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_...o p_computers

Your stats as provided by this company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Applications

"While the statistics released by the company routinely place Operating
Systems sold by Microsoft (Windows) and Apple (Mac OS X) with a high market
share in the desktop computer category (through 2013), Vincent Vizzaccaro
(EVP - Marketing and Strategic Alliances, Net Applications, 2002-) has
stated that Microsoft and Apple are among the company's clients.[2] The
company has also admitted that their statistics are skewed.[3] These
admissions and the fact the company doesn't make their data sources or
processing methods public, has led many to criticize the company (e.g.[4]);
questioning their impartiality and the reliability of their statistics."

You're never going to get true stats, particularly if all you monitor are
www.microsoft.com or www.apple.com etc


I'm not implying anything here, just pointing it out, that's all.

--
sid

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
as they get the results they want.

they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
getting the results wanted.

it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult
than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results
when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time
left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the
images and get even *better* results than you thought could be
possible.

in other words, be productive.

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

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.

In article , sid
wrote:

In the past, I've found dcraw useful to get a quick look at things
by extracting the jpeg thumbnail (dcraw -e).

once again, more work than needed. on a mac, there's no need to run
anything (especially using a command line). a simple tap of the
space bar gives a quick look of nearly any file (photos, pdfs,
spreadsheets, zip files and much more), which is why it's called
quick look.

So how does quick look know which file you would like to see?

the ones you have selected. obviously.

Selected where?

in finder.

Oh, you mean the file manager, that you ran by clicking the finder icon in
the dock

although finder manages files, it's not a 'file manager'. it does a lot
more (some of which rather poorly but that's another discussion
entirely).

you must be running something to be able to see files to
select.

finder is part of the operating system. it's always running. it's 'the
desktop'. users don't 'run' finder.

It's an app that's autostarted when you log in. It lives at
/System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app

notice the .app at the end.

notice that it's buried in the system and *not* in the applications
folder.

while it might technically be an app, it isn't an app to the user. most
users wouldn't know to look there anyway. finder is part of the system.
it's the desktop that the user sees.

you also forgot the dock app and various other apps and processes that
also are running, and none of those are considered to be 'apps' even
though technically some are.

That's not some sort of file manager you are running is it? And what
do you think happens when you tap the spacebar? It runs some viewing
software, so that's 2 things you've run.

first of all, there are dozens of processes running, without the user
having to run them manually, including finder. tapping the space bar is
just another keystroke interpreted by finder. it does not run a second
app.

So you are running the first app then?

finder is always running.

all the user does is select one or more images and tap the space bar.

that's as easy as it gets, but apparently even that is too complicated
for you.

as far as the user is concerned, they click on one or more files, tap
the space bar and see the contents for nearly any file type. photos are
shown as photos, movies play in a window, spreadsheets are shown as
spreadsheets, etc.

I'm not talking about "as far as the user is concerned". You said you don't
have to run anything to have a preview display. I'm saying you do.

and you're wrong.

tapping a space bar is not 'running an app'. it's utilizing a feature
that's built into an app that is part of the operating system and
always running.

All of this is pointless,

that's true. you're arguing over stupid details.

whether you consider finder to be an app or not doesn't change how easy
it is to sample nearly any document on the hard drive.

call it an app if you want. it's still just a tap of the space bar.

there are no apps to run, no commands to type in (and correcting any
typos) or anything else.

what have you got against simplicity and straightforward user
interfaces?

I'm just trying to point out that your mac isn't
some wonder machine that can do loads of things no one else can, it's just a
computer and works like other computers. It's not magic.

true to an extent. although it is a computer, it does many things
better than other computers and other things not as well. overall, the
user experience is much better, a concept that is *totally* lost on
you.

On 2014.04.08, 16:54 , sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

In the past, I've found dcraw useful to get a quick look at things
by extracting the jpeg thumbnail (dcraw -e).

once again, more work than needed. on a mac, there's no need to run
anything (especially using a command line). a simple tap of the
space bar gives a quick look of nearly any file (photos, pdfs,
spreadsheets, zip files and much more), which is why it's called
quick look.

So how does quick look know which file you would like to see?

the ones you have selected. obviously.

Selected where?

in finder.

Oh, you mean the file manager, that you ran by clicking the finder icon in
the dock

you must be running something to be able to see files to
select.

finder is part of the operating system. it's always running. it's 'the
desktop'. users don't 'run' finder.

It's an app that's autostarted when you log in. It lives at
/System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app

notice the .app at the end.

You're being pedantic. The Finder is part of the middle-are that is an
integral part of OS X and its UI. No different than a folder view in Unity.

That's not some sort of file manager you are running is it? And what
do you think happens when you tap the spacebar? It runs some viewing
software, so that's 2 things you've run.

first of all, there are dozens of processes running, without the user
having to run them manually, including finder. tapping the space bar is
just another keystroke interpreted by finder. it does not run a second
app.

So you are running the first app then?

as far as the user is concerned, they click on one or more files, tap
the space bar and see the contents for nearly any file type. photos are
shown as photos, movies play in a window, spreadsheets are shown as
spreadsheets, etc.

I'm not talking about "as far as the user is concerned". You said you don't
have to run anything to have a preview display. I'm saying you do.

It's a given that any function on a computer has to execute code to do
something. Finder is "middleware" that is part and parcel of OS X as a
distribution. The user doesn't add it (as he would The Gimp or dcraw)
it is there. Indeed it's not possible to casually remove it from the
dock (it can be done but so indirectly as to be unknown by 99% of OS X
users).


All of this is pointless, I'm just trying to point out that your mac isn't
some wonder machine that can do loads of things no one else can, it's just a
computer and works like other computers. It's not magic.

No - but it is delivered with photographic workflow in mind - including
in Finder. Which is why it is the choice of most professional graphic
artists and a good proportion of photographers (those that don't use
Windows).

--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

On 2014-04-08 22:21:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
as they get the results they want.

they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
getting the results wanted.

it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult
than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results
when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time
left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the
images and get even *better* results than you thought could be
possible.

in other words, be productive.

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

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.

Regardless of all the other posturing and chest beating in this ****ing
contest my experience with LR5 and PS CS6/CC mirrors that of nospam. I
find the great majority of my work is done quite satisfactorily in LR5,
with PS used when major/critical compositing, cloning, or patching is
necessary.

Like Tony I have more than enough time on my hands to spend time
working on an image since I am not a pro with production deadlines, etc.

What I resent is this lofty, pompous arrogant, pseudo intellectual
tower Floyd positions himself in especially when the work he produces
is only remarkable in hie own mind. There is nothing Floyd has
presented to us demonstrates the superiority of his methods. What he
has shown us is in the same wheelhouse as shots Tony, Bret, Alan
Browne, Bob & Martha Coe, Jonas, Bowser, myself, and others here have
presented at one time or another with each of us using our preferred
OS, workflow and software. His work on the evidence presented is no
better, or worse than ours.

The vast majority of photographers have little need to boast about
knowledge of the esoterica of post processing, many choose not to use
any post at all, they need to be able to do what they need to do
efficiently with whatever software or OS they choose. That quest has
led most of us here to one of the commonly used OSes, Win, or OSX, and
more often than not, to one of the Adobe products.

If Floyd, sid and others are happy with what they do, so be it. Just
don't tell others that they are somehow intellectually lacking because
they don't follow their particular choice and that we have a personal
problem because we don't see things Floyd's way.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:21:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
as they get the results they want.

they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
getting the results wanted.

it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

I agree with Tony that you have an incredible ability to skew the
point when you don't want to see/hear it.

Up to this point in the thread the fact that LR is easy to use and
produces good results has been an entirely separate issue. It may be
*the* issue in your mind but for everybody else the current issue has
been the need to allow photographers the freedom to post-process in
anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long as they get the
results they want.


some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult
than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results
when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time
left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the
images and get even *better* results than you thought could be
possible.

in other words, be productive.

Go forth and multiply?

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

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?

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.

For a time saving you describe as *far* less you must be processing an
awful lot of photographs. How come you never have any to show?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:01:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-04-08 22:21:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
as they get the results they want.

they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
getting the results wanted.

it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult
than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results
when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time
left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the
images and get even *better* results than you thought could be
possible.

in other words, be productive.

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

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.

Regardless of all the other posturing and chest beating in this ****ing
contest my experience with LR5 and PS CS6/CC mirrors that of nospam. I
find the great majority of my work is done quite satisfactorily in LR5,
with PS used when major/critical compositing, cloning, or patching is
necessary.

Like Tony I have more than enough time on my hands to spend time
working on an image since I am not a pro with production deadlines, etc.

What I resent is this lofty, pompous arrogant, pseudo intellectual
tower Floyd positions himself in especially when the work he produces
is only remarkable in hie own mind. There is nothing Floyd has
presented to us demonstrates the superiority of his methods. What he
has shown us is in the same wheelhouse as shots Tony, Bret, Alan
Browne, Bob & Martha Coe, Jonas, Bowser, myself, and others here have
presented at one time or another with each of us using our preferred
OS, workflow and software. His work on the evidence presented is no
better, or worse than ours.

The vast majority of photographers have little need to boast about
knowledge of the esoterica of post processing, many choose not to use
any post at all, they need to be able to do what they need to do
efficiently with whatever software or OS they choose. That quest has
led most of us here to one of the commonly used OSes, Win, or OSX, and
more often than not, to one of the Adobe products.

If Floyd, sid and others are happy with what they do, so be it. Just
don't tell others that they are somehow intellectually lacking because
they don't follow their particular choice and that we have a personal
problem because we don't see things Floyd's way.

I share Floyd's point about sharpening. For that reason I'm not going
to discard Paint Shop Pro.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-04-09 00:15:51 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:01:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-04-08 22:21:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
as they get the results they want.

they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
getting the results wanted.

it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult
than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results
when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time
left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the
images and get even *better* results than you thought could be
possible.

in other words, be productive.

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

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.

Regardless of all the other posturing and chest beating in this ****ing
contest my experience with LR5 and PS CS6/CC mirrors that of nospam. I
find the great majority of my work is done quite satisfactorily in LR5,
with PS used when major/critical compositing, cloning, or patching is
necessary.

Like Tony I have more than enough time on my hands to spend time
working on an image since I am not a pro with production deadlines, etc.

What I resent is this lofty, pompous arrogant, pseudo intellectual
tower Floyd positions himself in especially when the work he produces
is only remarkable in hie own mind. There is nothing Floyd has
presented to us demonstrates the superiority of his methods. What he
has shown us is in the same wheelhouse as shots Tony, Bret, Alan
Browne, Bob & Martha Coe, Jonas, Bowser, myself, and others here have
presented at one time or another with each of us using our preferred
OS, workflow and software. His work on the evidence presented is no
better, or worse than ours.

The vast majority of photographers have little need to boast about
knowledge of the esoterica of post processing, many choose not to use
any post at all, they need to be able to do what they need to do
efficiently with whatever software or OS they choose. That quest has
led most of us here to one of the commonly used OSes, Win, or OSX, and
more often than not, to one of the Adobe products.

If Floyd, sid and others are happy with what they do, so be it. Just
don't tell others that they are somehow intellectually lacking because
they don't follow their particular choice and that we have a personal
problem because we don't see things Floyd's way.

I share Floyd's point about sharpening.

That's nice. I am sure that will please him.

For that reason I'm not going to discard Paint Shop Pro.

Nothing wrong with that, but I suggest you explore the options your
recent subscription to PS CC provides you. You might be surprised.
After all neither of us is engaged in astrophotography or medical
imaging.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:36:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

If Floyd, sid and others are happy with what they do, so be it. Just
don't tell others that they are somehow intellectually lacking because
they don't follow their particular choice and that we have a personal
problem because we don't see things Floyd's way.

I share Floyd's point about sharpening.

That's nice. I am sure that will please him.

For that reason I'm not going to discard Paint Shop Pro.

Nothing wrong with that, but I suggest you explore the options your
recent subscription to PS CC provides you. You might be surprised.
After all neither of us is engaged in astrophotography or medical
imaging.

Careful. You are beginning to sound a bit like nospam. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-04-09 01:55:48 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:01:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-04-08 22:21:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
as they get the results they want.

they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
getting the results wanted.

it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult
than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results
when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time
left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the
images and get even *better* results than you thought could be
possible.

in other words, be productive.

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

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.

Regardless of all the other posturing and chest beating in this ****ing
contest my experience with LR5 and PS CS6/CC mirrors that of nospam. I
find the great majority of my work is done quite satisfactorily in LR5,
with PS used when major/critical compositing, cloning, or patching is
necessary.

Like Tony I have more than enough time on my hands to spend time
working on an image since I am not a pro with production deadlines, etc.

What I resent is this lofty, pompous arrogant, pseudo intellectual
tower Floyd positions himself in especially when the work he produces
is only remarkable in hie own mind. There is nothing Floyd has
presented to us demonstrates the superiority of his methods.

But, we have seen some of Floyd's work and we can see his work if we
go to his website. For me, it's the same as looking at other
photographer's websites: some images I like very much, and some
images that don't impress me all that much.

That is exactly my point. I see nothing in Floyd's which supports his
claim of excellence over any other competent photographer's work, and
in some cases it does not elevate beyond the mundane & ordinary.

What I can't see in his photographs, though, is what processing
technique he used. Not that it interests me because I would not rate
an image because it was processed with this program or that program.

Also true, I don't particularly care what OS, software, or methods were
used to process a particular image. That image should stand on its own
merits regardless of photographer, OS, or software. However, we have
Floyd's word that he processes his images with an insight which we mere
mortals do not possess, or are capable of understanding.

If someone asks for suggestions, then - by all means - relate your
experiences with Lightroom or any other program. Provide samples that
show the kind of result you can get if they help.

....and that I do, almost to a fault.

However, this constant barrage of dick-waving over what program works
best in post isn't really of interest to anyone. What time or effort
anyone puts into post is irrelevant to the rest of us. Without seeing
what came out of the camera, we can't rate how well the post was done,
and we sure as hell don't care how the person got to that.

I can only relate my experience with software I have used. I use that
experience to address my preferences, and I have expressed my position
on that, regardless of the results each of us have produced. In this I
ally myself with Alan Browne.

Especially, when the person who is constantly critical of the choice
of others doesn't have the balls to show his own results.

There is that too.

--
Regards,

Savageduck