If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Bob
wrote: All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp. Why would you write this? he wrote it because it's true. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Bob
wrote: Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others. only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software. had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw. I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively? neither. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Alan Browne
wrote: Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others. only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software. had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw. I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively? I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v. Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy. And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well... the gimp is roughly where photoshop was about a decade ago and it still lacks some features that photoshop had *two* decades ago and some things aren't even on its roadmap going forward and will likely never get. meanwhile, photoshop keeps advancing, along with a plethora of other apps, including on mobile devices. One exercise, optimally sharpening (USM) a finished image, is but one of many examples I can use to show that the Gimp is a poor user experience for photographers. Yes - you can achieve the desired end for many things - just not as quickly or efficiently as in PS. (and yes, sufficient cherry picking will fine exceptions). that's it exactly. in fact, there are some operations that are an order of magnitude slower in the gimp than with other apps, and on the exact same hardware! plus, the gimp's user interface was designed by geeks (if you can even call it designed), not artists. in other words, while you 'can' do similar things with the gimp, it takes a lot more hassle and time. who wants that? it's also important to note that the gimp fanbois haven't other apps (with rare exception), whereas the gimp critics have used the alternatives and have actually compared them side by side. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , Bob wrote: All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp. Why would you write this? he wrote it because it's true. So you're both saying that it's not possibile to produce good photos using Linux and Gimp? Bob |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: On 2014.04.05, 19:40 , Bob wrote: In article , nospam wrote: [ ... ] Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others. only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software. had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw. I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively? I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v. Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy. And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well... One exercise, optimally sharpening (USM) a finished image, is but one of many examples I can use to show that the Gimp is a poor user experience for photographers. Yes - you can achieve the desired end for many things - just not as quickly or efficiently as in PS. (and yes, sufficient cherry picking will fine exceptions). And so does that make those of us that don't have the problems with Gimp that you do dumber? Bob |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , Bob wrote: Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others. only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software. had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw. I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively? neither. So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with good results? Bob |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Jeffery Small) wrote: I thought I would post this to the digital group to see if there were any Minolta or Sony users who used the UFRaw converter software with their raw image files. I have been having serious problems and wanted to see if this was observed by others. Here is my story. Ubuntu 13.10 system running on an Asus U56E system UFRaw ver. 0.19.2 Dcraw ver. 9.19.1 GIMP ver. 2.8.6 Darktable ver. 1.2.3 Shotwell ver. 0.15.0 When attempting to load Minolta (mrw) and Sony (arw) raw image files into GIMP, the UFRaw plug-in is not properly processing them. The following webpage has images which demonstrate the problem: http://smallthoughts.com/photos/misc/GIMP/index.html The raw files are being imported with distorted color, exposure and contrast. However, as the additional images show, other programs such as Darktable and Shotwell and the Minolta/Sony editing programs (on Windows) are importing and displaying these raw files properly. Has anyone else been experiencing similar problems with their raw files of any type? Typically UFRAW is configured to save the current configuration as the default for the next image, which means (with that option enabled) you must set all configuration options each time UFRAW is started. Or another way to put it, there is no standard set of defaults that will always be somewhere close. If the last image processed was way out in left field, the next one will not even come close to looking right unless it is also off into left field. Thanks. That's good to know. However, I cannot understand the logic behind this behavior. Shouldn't the program read the camera settings for the exposure as shot an then adjust the default settings to match what was the target exposure selected by the user? This would make more sense to me. If you're adjusting a series of pictures, it would then make sense to allow the current set of adjustments to be stored and easily reapplied on the fly. With the screen shots you are showing we can't tell anything other than what "exposure" is set for. There are two places where a gamma curve can be set, plus slider options for gamma value and gamma linearity. (If it is compiled in, you may also have a slider option for "contrast".) Any of those, with odd defaults, might be the cause of the way the RGB image is being produced. There are a number of ways, if you need a standard default configuration, to accomplish that. You could configure UFRAW to have one preset default configuration used for every image. Sounds good, but in practice that will cost a huge amount of processing time unless you actually do RAW conversions one at a time (for example using UFRAW as a plugin to GIMP to preprocess individual images). The most efficient workflow is usually invoking UFRAW interactively on a directory full of RAW files, and writing only the "ID" file for each while using it interactively. When finished with all of the RAW files UFRAW is then invoked as a batch process to produce the RGB output files (while you can then take a coffee break or whatever). At the beginning of the interactive session every configuration option is set as desired, and the configuration for each image is the default for the next. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Thanks for all the great information, Floyd. I haven't been using UFRaw as I thought it was broken. I'll spend some time with it and see if I can get a better grasp on its nuances. Regards, -- Jeff |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On 2014-04-06 03:10:17 +0000, Bob said:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , Bob wrote: Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others. only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software. had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw. I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively? neither. So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with good results? Not efficiently, using it is a royal PIA, and other software available for Windows and OSX is superior in all ways. However, some GIMP users who have no desire to use Win or OSX, and only think open source freeware have been able to produce acceptable images. I have a copy of GIMP 2.8.2 on this Mac which I visit from time to time to remind me just why I don't include it in my image processing workflow. Regardless of the claims of GIMP evangelists/advocates it is not the equal of Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom. There are also some other affordable and very powerful image editing apps available for OSX (I don't check on Win stuff) which put GIMP in the shade. So while GIMP might suffice for you, Floyd, and other single minded Linux users, it doesn't do it for me, and the great majority individuals in the graphics and digital imaging world. If I didn't use PS/CC and LR5, I would buy the $29.99 Pixelmator to use before I made GIMP part of my daily workflow. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Bob
wrote: All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp. Why would you write this? he wrote it because it's true. So you're both saying that it's not possibile to produce good photos using Linux and Gimp? nobody said that it's impossible. what is being said is that the gimp is inefficient, slow and clunky, with the alternatives leaving it in the dust. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Bob
wrote: Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be possible for some people, but it can be a superior choice for others. only for those not interested or incapable of using more capable software. had the original poster been using camera raw, he would not have had any problems with minolta/sony or any other raw file, and he would also benefit from a fully non-destructive workflow, something not possible with the gimp/ufraw. I'm confused. Are you saying *noone* can produce good and efficient results with GIMP, or are you saying *you* aren't able to use it effectively? I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v. Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy. And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well... One exercise, optimally sharpening (USM) a finished image, is but one of many examples I can use to show that the Gimp is a poor user experience for photographers. Yes - you can achieve the desired end for many things - just not as quickly or efficiently as in PS. (and yes, sufficient cherry picking will fine exceptions). And so does that make those of us that don't have the problems with Gimp that you do dumber? what other apps have you used? because it sounds like you have never used anything other than the gimp and don't know just how awful it really is compared to what else is available. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | June 3rd 12 10:41 AM |
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users | Joe Kotroczo | Digital Photography | 0 | May 31st 12 08:14 PM |
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users | Joe Kotroczo | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | May 31st 12 08:14 PM |
GIMP and UFraw | jeff worsnop | Digital Photography | 8 | December 8th 08 03:23 AM |