Photo editing software recomendation

Acdsee Pro is great for a photographer
Come take a look at http://www.photochimper.com/forum/ we would really
like to have you be part of our on line photo club

Thanks



"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:871wa7tpp5.fld@apaflo.com...
> John Navas <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:53:26 -0900, floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>wrote in <87eje7tsqx.fld.DeleteThis@apaflo.com>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Be sure to get the latest bug fix (2.4.2) because the initial 2.4
>>>>release was pretty shaky.
>>>
>>>John, why do you say these things? The changes in 2.4.1
>>>and 2.4.2 do not indicate anything "pretty shaky" about
>>>the 2.4.0 release.
>>
>>GIMP 2.4.2 Released 2007-11-21
>>
>>Three weeks later enough bug-fixes have piled up to warrant another
>>bug-fix release in the stable GIMP 2.4 series. Please see the NEWS file
>>for details.
>>
>>GIMP 2.4.1 Released 2007-10-31
>>
>>GIMP 2.4.1 is a bug-fix release in the stable 2.4 series. It fixes
>>problems that were discovered after the 2.4.0 release. Please see the
>>NEWS file for details.
>>
>>GIMP 2.4.0 Released 2007-10-24
>
> So just what about that suggest that it was "pretty
> shaky"?
>
> Between the initial release and the 2.4.1 update, there
> were 16 changes logged. Two of them, both relating to
> handling "broken plug-ins", caused a crash (another is
> listed as fixing a "potential crash", so apparently it
> could have but that was never reported).
>
> That does not describe a shakey program at all! (I
> looked at 2.4.2, and haven't gotten around to upgrading
> because there simply wasn't anything critical.)
>
> What I see with the 2.4 release is a *very* responsive
> development team! No waiting six months while they take
> a rest. Of course it is also true that the 2.3
> development versions had been relatively stable for
> quite some time. I switched to the 2.3 release many
> months ago, and was very pleased with it right from the
> start. There was one development release that actually
> caused me a real problem, and all the rest amounted to a
> fairly smooth continuum of progress towards the final
> product.
>
>>>[SNIP GIMP advocacy]
>>
>>I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of GIMP. I find it
>>unintuitive and clumsy. You don't. And there we have it.
>
> You can't debate the pros and cons of GIMP, and nobody
> wants to hear your biases.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo editing software recomendation 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:49:53 -0900, floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <877ijzrmke.fld.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:06:53 -0800, nospam <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>in <301120071506536412%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>>
>>>In article <oag0l3tctm40g3svqv89j18dg16dvnb11u.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>><spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> GIMP proponents used to claim GIMP was more logical, that you just had
>>>> to learn how to think like it,
>>>
>>>"works just fine, if you learn how to use it effectively."
>>>
>>>"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."
>>
>>I'm not blaming the tool. I simply don't like it because it doesn't fit
>>my needs. If you like it because it fits your needs, all well and good.
>>Just don't try to claim that it fits my needs.
>
>Lets see, "crazy and arrogant attitude", "feature gaps",
>"instability issues", "pretty shaky"... none of that
>supported by facts, and you say you aren't blaming the
>tool.
>
>It's the poor workman talking...

That's the ad hominem talking. If you can't rebut what I say, then at
least be man enough to admit it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Photo editing software recomendation 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:38:04 -0900, floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87fxynrn43.fld DeleteThis @apaflo.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Always the insult when the argument has run out of gas.
>>I'm not to blame for the design and implementation flaws in GIMP.
>>"The lady doth protest too much, methinks!"
>
>I think you are protesting a bit too much!
>
>As I mentioned, I've used the development track for the
>2.4 release for a long time.
>
>I simply do not believe that it crashed twice on you,
>unless it was simply your own bumbling fault at not
>being able to install it correctly.
>
>Some of the things you claim are just a bit much over
>the edge John. Your credibility is getting very low.

Such childish insults only serve to diminish your own credibility.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Photo editing software recomendation 

In article <5p55n3t1k839epautt1aiu8fsops81npof DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Such childish insults only serve to diminish your own credibility.

Isn't it about time to post your bi-monthly tirade against Motorola
cell phone chargers?
 >> Stay informed about: Photo editing software recomendation 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:31:26 -0700, ray <ray RemoveThis @zianet.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.12.01.01.31.25.110130 RemoveThis @zianet.com>:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:45:27 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:59:18 -0900, floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>> wrote in <871wa7tpp5.fld RemoveThis @apaflo.com>:

>>>What I see with the 2.4 release is a *very* responsive
>>>development team!
>>
>> As a professional in software development, I see it as a sure sign of
>> poor software quality. Good software doesn't need hasty bug fixes, and
>> that kind of release speed makes quality methods impossible.
>
>Beats the hell out of waiting six months to fix bugs - one prominent OS
>vendor has that well deserved reputation.

What's best is to design in quality from the beginning, to maintain
quality throughout the development process, and to release quality
software that doesn't need to be fixed in the field. What "one
prominent OS vendor" does is utterly irrelevant.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Photo editing software recomendation