I’ve been attempting to respond to a few of the replies here, but abandoned them as I can only see from the kind of responses that much of what I’m trying to say is being misunderstood, or as Dave Goldberg says, ‘blown out of proportion’.
I too am simply trying to understand how DT works, but without success.
Mica, chill out man. I’m not saying that DT is failing, I know it’s me that’s failing, and I’m trying to understand why. I’m not at a point of worrying about individual images, this is a general problem for me so far. I’m not critising DT at all, but I’m finding it frustrating to get to grips with, and the inconsistant advice I’m reading isn’t helping.
Aurelien, you’re reading more into this than intended, and you’re misquoting me. For one I didn’t mention my favourite software as a comparison, I’m referring to any other software at the moment. You seem to be missing the point that many are coming from that other software, so will inevitably be comparing to some extent. We can’t just undo 20 years of learning, even though you seem critical of that as a concept.
I’ve also been careful (I think) not to say GUI, but only UI, as I wanted to keep a distinct difference there. We have to start somewhere with understanding how the software works, and the UI is the first point in that process. Whether it looks pretty, or not, is not important.
If you’re saying that I’m never going to get how DT works from the UI, and I have to learn the science behind it to get anywhere, then that’s fine, I understand, and I know that DT probably isn’t going to be for me. It certainly seems that trying to get a basic workflow to process a large number of images quickly is not going to be possible.