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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with good results? definitely not. not only is the gimp not at all efficient in what it does do, but it can't do a lot of things that other software has been doing for *years* and given its road map, it won't ever be doing. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Jeffery Small wrote:
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. it should, but many times it can't because that information is encrypted. what a lot of software does is apply its own defaults to give you something usable, and then you can take it from there. 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. lightroom can apply adjustments to as many photos as you want as well as saving them as a preset. ....snip... 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. if you have to spend so much time to get it to work, then it is broken. good software 'just works'. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
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? What he says has zero significance. The fact is he can't use it effectively, and others can. At a lower level it is probably quite true that other software is easier to learn, up to a level that is sufficient for those who merely want to be "sufficient". If you want perfection and work at the extreme ends, things become a lot different. Linux allows a great deal of flexibility that simply cannot be accomplished with any ease using Windows. A Mac is inbetween. GIMP is just fine, for a perfectionist. It's holy terror for those who only need to skim the surface. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
Alan Browne wrote:
And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well... Tell us about how great it is to have only a choice between "bicubic sharper" and "bicubic smoother" for filters when resampling an image either down for the web or up for printing! 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). You can't get sharpening quit right using Photoshop. But with GIMP it is possible to combine, in proportions of the users choice, Wavelet sharpening, High Pass sharpening, Unsharp Mask, and Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional sharpening. Photoshop is fine if you are willing to settle for "good enough", but if you know the difference you'll get between *proper* application of USM, HP sharpen and RL sharpen there is no comparison. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
Bob wrote:
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? Which is true... for them. I'm not sure they can do that with any software though. But I'm very positive that Linux and GIMP provide both a flexible platform and the functionality necessary to do professional work with photography. I don't do cinematography, but that has also been done with Linux. The main point is that it doesn't do exactly the same things that they are used to with Windows or a Mac. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
Savageduck wrote:
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. I suppose for people who lack certain abilities and do not have critical needs, that might appear to be true. Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family album or to post on Facebook. For those who have higher aspirations there are alternatives that are better. 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. How about those who only think about the results, and are able to get better results using Linux and GIMP... I don't do astrophotography, as an example, but see where many of those who do use Linux and associated tools. And others don't. 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. GIMP is not the same as "Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom" for you, but the alternate view is that you simply don't seem able to use GIMP, even when it would do a better job. Who exactly has the problem? You or the program that others can use to do what you can't? 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. So you make your decisions according to what you see as the most popular? Everyone that lacks any idea of what an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy this! I buy what will best produce the results I need. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
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? 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. What needs to be added is that it is only true for those who are unable or unwilling (as in having no reason) to become expert in its use. For an expert user with critical needs Linux is far better, and GIMP is the equal of anything. The biggest difference is that with Linux and GIMP you have to know what you want the software to produce. With most other software there has been significant effort put into showing a user how to produce "satisfactory results" (which is just annoying cruft for an expert). With some software you have a slider for "sharpness", and by looking at the image it can be adjusted to get a "sharper" image. Wow! It looks better than it did, and that's wonderful. But you have no idea what it did, or if something else could be better. With GIMP you have to know which type of a sharpen process will produce the results that you want. What you get isn't just "It looks better than it did". It looks the way you want it to. That's creativity in practice, as opposed to throwing paint balls at canvas to creat art. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-06 05:14:36 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said: Savageduck wrote: 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. I suppose for people who lack certain abilities and do not have critical needs, that might appear to be true. What are these *certain abilities* and *critical needs* folks who do not choose to use Linux lack? Customized workflow is just the start. I can't imagine taking the time necessary to properly process images on Windows or OSX. (In the way I want them processed, not the way others do or you do.) Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family album or to post on Facebook. Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They As for example using Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper to filter resampling algorithms? :-) also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill* snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game. For those who have higher aspirations there are alternatives that are better. You seem to be taking a somewhat lofty and condescending perch there Floyd. Compared to what you've posted???? Get real. 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. How about those who only think about the results, and are able to get better results using Linux and GIMP... Better results? Better results than what? Than they can using other software. 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. GIMP is not the same as "Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom" for you, Correct. It is lacking when compared with PS CS6.CC an LR5. It lacks what *you* can understand and use. That's a personal problem, eh? but the alternate view is that you simply don't seem able to use GIMP, even when it would do a better job. I can, and have used GIMP. As to doing a better job I disagree. But you can't figure out how to use it effectively... A problem that others don't have. Who exactly has the problem? You or the program that others can use to do what you can't? Why is it a problem? I don't usually use GIMP, so no problem. What is it that I am not supposed to be able to do? One would think you would be able to ascertain where the problem is and avoid petty bias in discussing this topic. If you don't want to use GIMP that is fine, but not when you say that because you are unable to use it effectively means others should avoid it despite the fact that it clearly can be very effectively used and is extremely efficient for those who do. 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. So you make your decisions according to what you see as the most popular? No. I make my decisions based on what does the job for me in the most efficient manner. And blame your personal limitations on others. Everyone that lacks any idea of what an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy this! I buy what will best produce the results I need. Actually that is what I do. You might, but when you advise others that is not what you say. It seems that when it comes to image editing software, given the MSRP of GIMP you don't actually buy anything other than very good cameras & glass. Oh? In fact it is more. You buy into a system that requires a great deal of learning, no matter which it is. It may also, if you do have a need for the effectiveness described, need hardware that matches. There's no free lunch. You capture decent enough images and your GIMP workflow works for you, but your GIMP/Linux advocacy where you denigrate all who disagree with your choices does nothing to advance your cause. I don't care if you find another program better for your uses. I'm not saying that other programs are useless, ineffective, and all the other trash talk that *you* heap on choices other than your own. I'm not the one dumping on other's choices... I am dumping on your habit of trash talking anything you can't or don't use. None of the examples of your work which we have seen presents an argument for the superiority of GIMP over any other software. Your sense of superiority over others of us in these photo NGs is misplaced. I don't recall dumping on your work, or suggesting mine is superior to anyones. Seems you have a real problem with justifying yourself as an individual. But it is true that I don't mind at all if my own photography is used as an example of what can be done with Linux and GIMP. Whatever it may or may not be, it certainly isn't non-existant which your claims suggest! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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 |