"[H]omer" wrote:
> Mike spake thusly:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Linux, a photographer's dilemma. . .
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ] Obviously, alot has changed since Mandrake
>>> version 8. Some time ago, I tried a live CD for Ubuntu version
>>> 5.10 - and was very impressed. As we speek, I'm downloading
>>> Ubuntu 6.10. .... Once again, I'm flirting with the opensource
>>> idea because upgrading to Window's VISTA simply isn't going to
>>> happen for me. `----
>>>
>>> http://www.pixelessence.net/linux.html
>>
>> I'm a photographer and use Windows. Using GIMP instead of
>> Photoshop is one of the worst ideas anyone could possibly have.
>
> No. Paying more for your software, than what you paid for the
> camera, is by far a worse idea, especially when said software is
> mostly just vastly overrated hype.
A real photographer uses tools and could care less as long as it
works. It is like using a camera. I have done weddings using 35 mm
and 120 roll film with a twin reflex, multiple flash set-ups,
umbrellas, etc. Only thing bad about photography is just like with
music. It is hard to make a decent living out of it compared with
other trades.
Simple twin lens reflex Yashica A I used for several weddings takes
great pictures if one stops it down to 5.6 F-stop or smaller. Back in
the '50s it was considered an inexpensive camera. I picked up as NOS
on E-bay. It has no meter, but I use a separate flash meter anyway.
Give a photographer a simple camera, and he will still take great
pictures. A Hasselblad or Nikon a professional photographer does not
make. Same goes with PC software tools.
Same goes with computer programmers .... or anything for matter of
fact.
I think overall people have gotten into this mode where tool brands
make a professional employee. They don't.
Bad pictures suck no matter what professional equipment and set-up
they are made from.
There's nothing wrong with GIMP.
--
HPT
|
|
