converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 2013-12-02 02:20:42 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:
...
Also, the TIFF related stuff is in a library, used by both UFRAW
and GIMP, so it if it is something else it may not actually be
related to the specifics of either of these programs!

doesn't matter where the problem is.

at the end of the day, he can't open a standard image format.

Are you actually that impaired?

Misconfigured software is not unusual for new users on the first
try.

...
convert image1.tif -depth 8 -type truecolor -density 300 -units
pixelsperinch newimage1.tif

If that works, try it again without the "-density 300 -units
pixelsperinch" options.

didn't someone say there were no hoops to jump through??

sure looks like hoops to me.

Incidentally, all of that works exactly the same way on an OSX
or MS-WINDOWS machine.

Not on my OSX machine it doesn't.
I import RAW files (NEF, CR2, & RAF) into Lightroom or open in ACR
without jumping through a single hoop. Admittedly I have set up my LR
import & file handling preferences. Images adjusted non-destructively
in LR and can be exported in your format of choice. If taken into
Photoshop the resulting image can be saved in your format of choice.
Not a hoop in sight.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I think you will find the equivalent of the 10,000 line scripts are
there in PS6/LR5. It's just that somebody else has written them and
hidden them behind an icon.

that's a *huge* advantage.

It sure is for me!

whoosh.

It goes right over your head every time!

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

In article 2013120118400784958-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

convert image1.tif -depth 8 -type truecolor -density 300 -units
pixelsperinch newimage1.tif

If that works, try it again without the "-density 300 -units
pixelsperinch" options.

didn't someone say there were no hoops to jump through??

sure looks like hoops to me.

Incidentally, all of that works exactly the same way on an OSX
or MS-WINDOWS machine.

Not on my OSX machine it doesn't.
I import RAW files (NEF, CR2, & RAF) into Lightroom or open in ACR
without jumping through a single hoop. Admittedly I have set up my LR
import & file handling preferences. Images adjusted non-destructively
in LR and can be exported in your format of choice. If taken into
Photoshop the resulting image can be saved in your format of choice.
Not a hoop in sight.

there's nothing to set up to support tif in lightroom or photoshop.

as you say, it 'just works'.

on a mac, tif, jpeg and many other image formats, are native, just like
text and pdf. that means even the simplest app can support just about
anything.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I think you will find the equivalent of the 10,000 line scripts are
there in PS6/LR5. It's just that somebody else has written them and
hidden them behind an icon.

that's a *huge* advantage.

It sure is for me!

whoosh.

It goes right over your head every time!

apparently you have difficulty with english.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

what you fail to grasp is that on a mac or windows, what takes a click
or two, takes all sorts of hoops on linux.

What purpose does it serve to make up such silly statements as that.

nothing silly about it.

your post about how to open a tif file demonstrates just how true it is.

A click on a Linux box is exactly the same as a click on a Mac or
on Windows.

not when the apps that receive the clicks do so much more.

The problem is that clicking a mouse is a great solution for some
things, and a terrible one for others. Restricting oneself to
only or to never is equally faulty.

there is no restriction. both options are available on a mac.

Sure.

And in exactly the same way both solutions are available on Linux.

Except with Linux they both work well.

it's like saying using a typewriter and a word processing app are both
the same because with both, you push the same keys.

one is *far* easier to use and more productive than the other.

In different situations it turns out the other is easier and
more productive.

in what situation would a typewriter be more productive?

You can't read well? I didn't say that OSX was in effect a typewriter.

the only one would be wanting to write something during a power outage,
and if outages happen more than on rare occasion, you have more serious
problems than not being able to write something.

So what? We weren't talking about typewriters. Don't you understand
what an analogy is? It's not an assignment operation, it's just a
rough comparison.

Try reading for content, and try to stay on topic. Try a bit of logic!

camera raw is *far* more advanced than anything on linux, plus there are

many more choices too. if you don't like one raw converter, use
another.

What has that got to do with it?

if you want the best results you need to use the best tools, which are
not available for linux. that's just how it is.

You make this crap up for what purpose?

it's not made up nor is it crap.

It's both.

photoshop, lightroom, aperture, dxo, pixelmator and dozens and dozens
of other apps are *not* available to linux users.

I don't really know, but won't most of those run under WINE or
other virtual machine packages?

Doesn't make much difference, nothing you listed there is of any
value to me at all.

one of the most useful features is non-destructive editing. not only
does the gimp not support that, but it doesn't even support adjustment
layers! photoshop had that about 20 years ago. it's so behind the times
it's laughable.

Ah, well, I suppose you need them. Stick with programs that
have those features then.

How many of those are restricted to using only a single window
on the screen, or perhaps two at most. That's an abomination!

How many of those can be executed remotely over a network, which
is another abomination.

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

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Also, the TIFF related stuff is in a library, used by both UFRAW
and GIMP, so it if it is something else it may not actually be
related to the specifics of either of these programs!

doesn't matter where the problem is.

at the end of the day, he can't open a standard image format.

Are you actually that impaired?

Misconfigured software is not unusual for new users on the first
try.

why should anyone have to configure something just to open a standard
format file??

that's what i mean by jumping through hoops.

You clearly did not understand the problem. It is not
reconfiguring the editor to open a standard format file.

It's writing the output from UFRAW to be in a format that GIMP
reads.

GIMP, as it happens, reads a long list of standard format files,
but like all programs it doesn't support everything. Will
Photoshop open XCF files correctly? Will it open a TIFF with
layers, with 14 bit depth, with any of the odd greyscale formats
that TIFF can support? I'm sure that we can find something that
your favorite editors cannot open properly. For years a lot of
programs couldn't deal with PNG, 12 bit JPEGs, and a few other
standardized JPEG options. Whoop dee doo.

convert image1.tif -depth 8 -type truecolor -density 300 -units
pixelsperinch newimage1.tif

If that works, try it again without the "-density 300 -units
pixelsperinch" options.

didn't someone say there were no hoops to jump through??

sure looks like hoops to me.

Incidentally, all of that works exactly the same way on an OSX
or MS-WINDOWS machine.

incidentally, you are wrong *again*.

In fact I'm right. As usual you can't get past your nose.

none of that is necessary on a mac or windows system.

It works *exactly* the same on all three OS's. It has nothing
to do with the OS. It has everything to do with changing one
default option in UFRAW, which is the same on all three OS's.

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

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-02 02:20:42 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:
...
Also, the TIFF related stuff is in a library, used by both UFRAW
and GIMP, so it if it is something else it may not actually be
related to the specifics of either of these programs!
doesn't matter where the problem is.
at the end of the day, he can't open a standard image
format.
Are you actually that impaired?
Misconfigured software is not unusual for new users on
the first
try.
...
convert image1.tif -depth 8 -type truecolor -density 300 -units
pixelsperinch newimage1.tif
If that works, try it again without the "-density
300 -units
pixelsperinch" options.
didn't someone say there were no hoops to jump
through??
sure looks like hoops to me.
Incidentally, all of that works exactly the same way
on an OSX
or MS-WINDOWS machine.

Not on my OSX machine it doesn't.

Yes it does.

I import RAW files (NEF, CR2, & RAF) into Lightroom or open in ACR

We are not talking about what Lightware does or what ACR does. Pay
attention.

without jumping through a single hoop. Admittedly I have set up my LR
import & file handling preferences.

And when the OP has correctly configured his programs, they will
work too.

Images adjusted non-destructively
in LR and can be exported in your format of choice. If taken into
Photoshop the resulting image can be saved in your format of choice.
Not a hoop in sight.

You just describe hoops, and then say there are none.

What you mean is that there are different ways to configure
different programs, and you don't have a clue about what the OP
needs.

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

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I think you will find the equivalent of the 10,000 line scripts are
there in PS6/LR5. It's just that somebody else has written them and
hidden them behind an icon.

that's a *huge* advantage.

It sure is for me!

whoosh.

It goes right over your head every time!

apparently you have difficulty with english.

Projection won't save you.

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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The problem is that clicking a mouse is a great solution for some
things, and a terrible one for others. Restricting oneself to
only or to never is equally faulty.

there is no restriction. both options are available on a mac.

Sure.

And in exactly the same way both solutions are available on Linux.

so you finally admit there's a command line on the mac.

that's one revelation, i guess.

do you still think it's hidden or do we need to work on that one?

Except with Linux they both work well.

nonsense. the same script will do the same thing on both.

the difference is there are much more efficient alternatives on a mac
that are unavailable to linux users. they have no choice but to jump
through hoops.

it's like saying using a typewriter and a word processing app are both
the same because with both, you push the same keys.

one is *far* easier to use and more productive than the other.

In different situations it turns out the other is easier and
more productive.

in what situation would a typewriter be more productive?

You can't read well? I didn't say that OSX was in effect a typewriter.

nor did i.

the only one would be wanting to write something during a power outage,
and if outages happen more than on rare occasion, you have more serious
problems than not being able to write something.

So what? We weren't talking about typewriters. Don't you understand
what an analogy is? It's not an assignment operation, it's just a
rough comparison.

Try reading for content, and try to stay on topic. Try a bit of logic!

after you!

camera raw is *far* more advanced than anything on linux, plus there
are

many more choices too. if you don't like one raw converter, use
another.

What has that got to do with it?

if you want the best results you need to use the best tools, which are
not available for linux. that's just how it is.

You make this crap up for what purpose?

it's not made up nor is it crap.

It's both.

photoshop, lightroom, aperture, dxo, pixelmator and dozens and dozens
of other apps are *not* available to linux users.

I don't really know, but won't most of those run under WINE or
other virtual machine packages?

some versions of photoshop will work with wine, but usually with all
sorts of issues.

who wants to deal with that ****?

people want to produce results not configure their systems.

Doesn't make much difference, nothing you listed there is of any
value to me at all.

how do you know, if you've never used any of them?

you don't even know what they can do!

*that* is the problem.

it would be one thing if you said "i used photoshop for one project and
here's what i liked and didn't like..."

but you didn't do that. you immediately dismiss anything other than
linux, without even knowing what it is you're dismissing.

one of the most useful features is non-destructive editing. not only
does the gimp not support that, but it doesn't even support adjustment
layers! photoshop had that about 20 years ago. it's so behind the times
it's laughable.

Ah, well, I suppose you need them. Stick with programs that
have those features then.

do you even know what they do?? i suspect not.

non-destructive editing and adjustment layers are *very* useful and a
huge, huge time saver.

How many of those are restricted to using only a single window
on the screen, or perhaps two at most. That's an abomination!

none.

where do you get these ****ed up ideas??

How many of those can be executed remotely over a network, which
is another abomination.

all.

are there any other ignorant comments? or is that it?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Also, the TIFF related stuff is in a library, used by both UFRAW
and GIMP, so it if it is something else it may not actually be
related to the specifics of either of these programs!

doesn't matter where the problem is.

at the end of the day, he can't open a standard image format.

Are you actually that impaired?

Misconfigured software is not unusual for new users on the first
try.

why should anyone have to configure something just to open a standard
format file??

that's what i mean by jumping through hoops.

You clearly did not understand the problem. It is not
reconfiguring the editor to open a standard format file.

It's writing the output from UFRAW to be in a format that GIMP
reads.

more hoops. why isn't it integrated?

camera raw is integrated into photoshop and lightroom. raws are in
effect, a native format.

in fact, you can go *back* to camera raw after processing the image to
make a change, without losing any of the work you did in photoshop.

GIMP, as it happens, reads a long list of standard format files,
but like all programs it doesn't support everything. Will
Photoshop open XCF files correctly? Will it open a TIFF with
layers, with 14 bit depth, with any of the odd greyscale formats
that TIFF can support?

photoshop is one of the few apps that supports layered tiff, and i
think the first to do so.

I'm sure that we can find something that
your favorite editors cannot open properly. For years a lot of
programs couldn't deal with PNG, 12 bit JPEGs, and a few other
standardized JPEG options. Whoop dee doo.

the issue is not whether it supports a format but having to do more
than just file/open to read it.

convert image1.tif -depth 8 -type truecolor -density 300 -units
pixelsperinch newimage1.tif

If that works, try it again without the "-density 300 -units
pixelsperinch" options.

didn't someone say there were no hoops to jump through??

sure looks like hoops to me.

Incidentally, all of that works exactly the same way on an OSX
or MS-WINDOWS machine.

incidentally, you are wrong *again*.

In fact I'm right. As usual you can't get past your nose.

nope. you're wrong.

none of that is necessary on a mac or windows system.

It works *exactly* the same on all three OS's. It has nothing
to do with the OS. It has everything to do with changing one
default option in UFRAW, which is the same on all three OS's.

ufraw might be the same, but on a mac or windows, there are other
options that are much easier, faster, and do not need any of these
hoops.

that's why those hoops aren't required.

to you, the whole world is the gimp/ufraw.