converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I use Linux because 1) I know what I'm doing, and 2) Linux does what
I need better than anything else.

an odd claim, given that you haven't tried much else.

If either of those were not true I'd have a very hard time
choosing between OSX and MS-WINDOWS.

why would you even consider windows, when os x can run your linux
scripts and software natively?

you could even pretend it was linux, and then use photoshop, lightroom
aperture, etc. where they work best, and then use scripts and what not
where they are useful.

On 2013-11-30 23:46:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:50:24 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:38:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Many a fine art print has been made with the 2880 and 3880. IMO the 4880
is designed for higher output. I may have been told wrong, but i thought
the 4880 produced prints that were equal in quality to the other two,
but was designed for higher production rates, and larger format.

... and roll feed.

The R2880 can deal with 13'' x 32' & 13'' x 20' rolls supplied by
Epson, Red River Paper, or Moab.

But the 3880 can't.

Don't be silly, of course it can. I was just saying that the R2880 was
capable of doing the same.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-30 23:52:59 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:11:03 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:41:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

Agreed

... and now I use Windows!

What's to hide, open the Terminal in a Mac and Unix lovers can go for
it, and play with the command line to their heart's content. It is
there, a click away for anybody who wants to go that route, and many do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_(OS_X)

It just adds to what we know Floyd, and I guess you are really not
familiar with Macs and OSX. There are all sorts of things you can do
with a Mac that have nothing to do with preconceived misconceptions of
OSX.

http://www.cultofmac.com/215174/mast...r-mac-feature/


Tch, tch, tch.

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

Well, I do favor OSX over Windows machines (& especially Linux). ;-)

A friend of mine sold Apple computers in the distant past

That had to be before OSX came on the scene in 2001. Before that there
was quite a bit which could be done using Apple Script from OS7 on, if
your pal didn't let you know about that then he failed his Apple
employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Script

and I kept rejecting his attempts to sell them to me for the simple reason that
they didn't have a command line. I would be very happy with the one
they have got now, if only they had it then.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-12-01 00:08:50 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


There are other requirements. One is being able to *use* an OS
to *make* better tools.

good tools can be made for any os, and in fact, it's much easier to do
that on mac and windows than it is on linux because there's so much
built into the operating system itself for apps to use, especially a
mac.

pixelmator (mac only), for instance, is a reasonable alternative to
photoshop because much of the image processing in it they got
completely for free since it's just an api call. it doesn't do
everything photoshop can do but it does quite a bit.

Pixelmator is an astonishingly good value and performer, it certainly
out performs GIMP for those Mac users looking for an Adobe alternative.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 19:08:54 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


So the fact that you don't have to develop your own set of
tools, and just take one off the shelf and form you workflow
around it somehow is better. Fine.

it means i get results with a lot less work. that's a huge plus.

unlike you, i don't like making things more difficult than it needs to
be.

What you don't seem to realise is that Lloyd is an usual person (and I
mean this in a complementary sense) who finds no difficulty in working
the way he does. Although you might see his waay of working as making
things more difficult, it comes naturally to Lloyd and causes him no
problems whatsoever.

i choose the best tool for the job, and if a tool can do what i want
with a couple of clicks rather than write a script (or even use a
provided one), why not do it the easier way?

to not do so would be stupid.

Except you of course missed the point that what was describe
turns out to be faster, more efficient and more effective
because the tools are designed to match the needed workflow in
stead of the other way around.

it's not faster at all. in fact, it's far slower since you have to
write and debug the script. that script did not write itself and it
wasn't perfect on the first try either.

You make it sound as if each job requires development of every
shell script used!

i never said that, but it might require modifications, possibly even
significant changes to do what you want.

the first version of your script did not solve every possible problem.

But of course on a normal basis that isn't
required. These tools are developed over a period of years and
are very precisely targeted at reducing wasted time with a
specific workflow.

tools which must be developed and maintained, which is not a zero cost.

meanwhile, what you described is no more complicated than a few clicks
with a tool that's designed to do the task and has existed for years.

And when something special that is different comes along, that
your program can't do... you just have to slug through it.

and when something special that is different comes along, that your
script cant do... you just have to modify it so that it does, then test
it and debug it, which takes time.

If it adds 5 seconds to each image processed in a couple of shoots
with 1000 images, that's 10,000 seconds of time. If instead of
wasting 2 or 3 hours, one spends 10 minutes writing a shell
scrip that does it all in half an hour... You think your whiz
bang click the buttons program is the greatest thing since
sliced bread, and I see it as a drag on productivity.

it's hardly a drag, but if you want to script a gui app, you still can.

apparently you don't know that photoshop can be scripted. it can also
record actions so you don't even need to write anything, maybe make
minor tweaks to it.

apparently you also don't know that any script you write for linux will
run on mac os x (probably unmodified, or at most with very minor
tweaks). there are also various tools such as imagemagick on mac, so
you can fall back to all of your primitive methods if you want.

I get better results in 1/3rd the time, so who is right?

you do not get better results in 1/3rd the time. that's flat out
bull****.

you've never used photoshop or lightroom, which means you've never done
any sort of comparison, so how could you possibly have come up with a
number anyway?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Savageduck wrote:
You have probably already done it but using
configuration windows and
menus etc. Lloyd uses a script.

So? That is what he needs to do because he is using Linux, with OSX,
LR, & PS, I don't need to do that, but I could if I needed to.
...but why go to the effort?

You can't. Or you would! At least if you try to generate an
effective efficient production workflow!

There are some extremely harsh limitations on using icons for an
interface to anything that is complex. And you are bound by
that, but I'm not. Your desktop interface was derived from
systems that were single user single tasking. Each program went
into a single directory. The icon that brings up an editor will
always have the same working directory.

That is too restrictive. I use a system derived initially from
a multi-user/multi-tasking environment. Instead of each program
being in one directory along with all of it's data, I put each
*project* into a unique directory. Any program can be invoked
from that directory, by any user, and will then have that as
it's working directory. I don't mix data, or configuration
files for various projects into the same working directory.

With the iconified desktop you either mix the data files into
the same directories, or each time you use a different program
launched from an icon you will have to manually reconfigure it.
That makes chaining the work of multiple programs together
unweldy, and causes programs to retain a do everything style
that was necessary when the "OS" was just a program loader.
(And that is the root cause of most of the security problems
with Windows.)

Icon base desktops are a very inefficient interface for a
competent users, but have a relatively shallow learning curve for
the new or intermittent user.

The desktop interface that I use has a very steep learning
curve, but it is exceptionally suited to an every day all day
computer user that needs effective and efficient tools and will
want to combine many tools in different groupings over different
projects.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:33:57 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 23:46:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:50:24 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:38:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Many a fine art print has been made with the 2880 and 3880. IMO the 4880
is designed for higher output. I may have been told wrong, but i thought
the 4880 produced prints that were equal in quality to the other two,
but was designed for higher production rates, and larger format.

... and roll feed.

The R2880 can deal with 13'' x 32' & 13'' x 20' rolls supplied by
Epson, Red River Paper, or Moab.

But the 3880 can't.

Don't be silly, of course it can. I was just saying that the R2880 was
capable of doing the same.

From the brochu

Printing
Complete borderless printing on the following cut-sheet sizes
4" x 6", 5" x 7", 8" x 10", 11" x 14", 13" x 19", 17" x 22"
Printable Area
Maximum paper width 17"
Maximum cut-sheet size 17" x 22"
Minimum cut-sheet size 4" x 6"
Left and right margins 0 or 3 mm each (0.24" total)
Top and bottom margins 0 or 3 mm or 15 mm each
Media Handling
Main top-loading feeder Up to 17" x 22"
Up to 120 sheets plain; 20 photo
Second top-loading feeder Up to 17" x 22"
Single sheet manual feeder,
optimized for fi ne art paper
Front manual feeder Up to 16" x 20"
Straight-through, single sheet
manual feeder up to 1.5 mm

Not a word about roll feed. See
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...c=40431.0;wap2
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , says...

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-30 21:41:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.
Agreed
... and now I use Windows!

What's to hide, open the Terminal in a Mac and Unix lovers can go for
it, and play with the command line to their heart's content. It is
there, a click away for anybody who wants to go that route, and many do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_(OS_X)

It just adds to what we know Floyd, and I guess you are really not
familiar with Macs and OSX. There are all sorts of things you can do
with a Mac that have nothing to do with preconceived misconceptions of
OSX.

Note that I'm not the one ranting about what someone else's OS
can or cannot do. YOU ARE.

You're the one who asserted that Apple had gone to some kind of "effort
to hide access to things like a shell command line".

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 19:09:05 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

A friend of mine sold Apple computers in the distant past and I kept
rejecting his attemptsto sell them to me for the simple reason that
they didn't have a command line. I would be very happy with the one
they have got now, if only they had it then.

he was misinformed.

all macs that run os x have a command line and prior to that, it could
be added if desired.

Way before OSX.

the thing is, it's rarely needed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:44:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 23:52:59 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:11:03 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:41:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

Agreed

... and now I use Windows!

What's to hide, open the Terminal in a Mac and Unix lovers can go for
it, and play with the command line to their heart's content. It is
there, a click away for anybody who wants to go that route, and many do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_(OS_X)

It just adds to what we know Floyd, and I guess you are really not
familiar with Macs and OSX. There are all sorts of things you can do
with a Mac that have nothing to do with preconceived misconceptions of
OSX.

http://www.cultofmac.com/215174/mast...r-mac-feature/


Tch, tch, tch.

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

Well, I do favor OSX over Windows machines (& especially Linux). ;-)

A friend of mine sold Apple computers in the distant past

That had to be before OSX came on the scene in 2001.

I'm talking about the early to mid 1980s. None of this modern trash.


Before that there
was quite a bit which could be done using Apple Script from OS7 on, if
your pal didn't let you know about that then he failed his Apple
employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Script

and I kept rejecting his attempts to sell them to me for the simple reason that
they didn't have a command line. I would be very happy with the one
they have got now, if only they had it then.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens