GIMP

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 01:45:57 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:19:49 +0000, James wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:56:02 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch tools. A friend
suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Thanks,
Mike.

The Gimp will do that and more. Just browse the plugin page it has most
every tool needed there and more added all the time. And you get to
save the $$ for more camera gear.

Jim

As far as I can see, Gimp allows only 8 bit colors. My camera takes 14
bit. If I am in error, please let me know.

Thanks,
Mike.

I thought they where gonna up that but I have not checked.

james

* James wrote :
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 01:45:57 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:19:49 +0000, James wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:56:02 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch tools. A friend
suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Thanks,
Mike.

The Gimp will do that and more. Just browse the plugin page it has most
every tool needed there and more added all the time. And you get to
save the $$ for more camera gear.

Jim

As far as I can see, Gimp allows only 8 bit colors. My camera takes 14
bit. If I am in error, please let me know.

Thanks,
Mike.

I thought they where gonna up that but I have not checked.

The development version is incorporating GEGL with a view to
higher colour depths etc.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 02:06:25 +0000, James wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 01:48:52 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:19:56 -0400, me wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:56:02 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch tools. A friend
suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

If you are looking for a spot healing tool in a raw processor you
might consider giving Bibble a try.

I tried Bibble. I found that the data associated with an image was
hard to find. This would be difficult for my backup procedures. If I
am in eeeor, and there is a way out of this (a way to create an easily
identifiable, complete file for each image) please let me know.

Thanks,
Mike.

I use bibble as well and it stores the .bib file with the original file
and shares its name. It does not match a renamed file so I rename them
my self.

James

Yes, I looked further and found how to save the bib file. That is
good. But I have a good portrait of a man with a short beard that
has a bad artifact near his lip due to dirt on the sensor. I can
clean it up nicely with Photoshop clone and stamp tools, but I have
not been able to do it with the Bibble spot tool. It seems that
multiple applications of the tool at different magnifications do
not interact well.

Mike.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

As far as I can see, Gimp allows only 8 bit colors. My camera takes
14 bit. If I am in error, please let me know.

Your camera shoots 14 bits per sensor location (one channel),
while GIMP has 24 bits per pixel location with 3-channel RGB.
(All of which is gobble-d-gook! Ignore it.)

First, use UFRAW as your RAW converter. Set exposure and White
Balance with UFRAW. Also set Gamma and linearity with UFRAW.
Then save as either PPM or TIFF format, and continue editing
with GIMP. Unless you get over into what is more graphic arts
than photography, the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit
formats will never affect you. (If necessary, I use
/cinepaint/, which is like an older version of GIMP and uses a
16 bit depth format.)

Also note that UFRAW is currently at version 0.13, and version
0.14 has a number of new features that you will greatly enjoy.
If you have the ability to compile it, download the bleeding
edge development version from CVS because it is worth it.

Additionally, the current version for GIMP is 2.4.6, and the
development version 2.5 will soon be able to handle 16 bit (and
probably 32 bit) images. Hence probably by the time you get
fairly compfortable with GIMP (the learning curve for such a
program is huge), a new version will be coming out that solves
the one missing feature. (I don't think that missing great
printing capabilities is significant, but that will perhaps be
corrected to. I use ImageMagick tools to size and format images
for printing, and will no doubt continue to do that.)

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

In article , Me
wrote:

Why is elements a better choice for that?

it does more and it is much faster than gimp. also, camera raw is
highly regarded and can now mimic the look of other raw processors,
notably the camera maker's own software.

ACR isn't as good as Nikon's Capture NX for raw conversion in general -

which raw output is 'best' is the subject of endless debates. camera
raw is considered to be among the better ones, as are the camera
maker's own software. also, with the new profiles, camera raw can
produce the same tonality and colour as nikon's software (or others),
so it's very difficult to even tell the difference anymore.

and nowhere near as good with the latest generation of cameras with
auto-ca correction, ADL, vignette control, and standard and customisable
picture controls (able to be shared/used with jpeg & raw in camera - or
in Nx) (I'm not sure if auto ca correction is in the D90). With other
makes of camera YMMV - it might be as good as anything else.

yes, nikon's software does a lot of that automatically which is quite
nice. nevertheless, camera raw can do it too, it just takes a little
tweaking, and the settings can be saved as a preset to be used again.

"Faster" than gimp? Not sure what that means. Gimp seems fast enough
rendering large image files. Like full photoshop, there's a learning
curve. Recent versions seem very stable.

it means that it takes less time to do the same step in photoshop than
in gimp with the same image on the same hardware. many operations are
real time (e.g., levels, curves), even with *huge* images, while on
gimp, it lags, and sometimes by quite a bit. opening raw images is
also faster, and there are numerous shortcuts to improve workflow.

Gimp has some better features than photoshop. The perspective clone
tool and perspective correction tools are IMO better.

how so?

Resizing /
resampling is better, with Lanczos interpolation included. Jpeg
compression options and preview is also IMO better. Gimp is also now
ICC colour aware.

barely. and photoshop has been colour managed for a decade.

The only real downsides are that it's limited to 8
bit colour, and totally useless (IMO) for printing.

that's one of many downsides. another huge drawback is that it lacks
adjustment layers. photoshop also has smart filters and camera raw can
work on a smart object for completely non-destructive editing.

cs4 is going to advance it even further.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Try Adobe PS Elements instead. You _get_ what you pay for.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

Why is elements a better choice for that?
it does more and it is much faster than gimp. also, camera raw is
highly regarded and can now mimic the look of other raw processors,
notably the camera maker's own software.
ACR isn't as good as Nikon's Capture NX for raw conversion in general -

which raw output is 'best' is the subject of endless debates. camera
raw is considered to be among the better ones, as are the camera
maker's own software. also, with the new profiles, camera raw can
produce the same tonality and colour as nikon's software (or others),
so it's very difficult to even tell the difference anymore.
ACR just isn't as good as NX converting *nef files. It's not a
subjective preference - the difference is quite clear.

and nowhere near as good with the latest generation of cameras with
auto-ca correction, ADL, vignette control, and standard and customisable
picture controls (able to be shared/used with jpeg & raw in camera - or
in Nx) (I'm not sure if auto ca correction is in the D90). With other
makes of camera YMMV - it might be as good as anything else.

yes, nikon's software does a lot of that automatically which is quite
nice. nevertheless, camera raw can do it too, it just takes a little
tweaking, and the settings can be saved as a preset to be used again.

A saved setting for CA correction and vignetting is near worthless, as
the degree of correction required will vary with focal length, aperture,
focus distance.
With CaptureNX, though many users haven't worked it out yet, with
shareable (between cameras or users) "picture controls" you can shoot
RAW+JPEG with the same settings applied to the jpeg as would be
favourite standard adjustments using the raw converter. That means only
ever using the raw file if significant pp is required. It's a great
system for anyone shooting a lot of images but still wanting raw - but
not understood by many Nikon users, who complain about how slow it can
be rendering nef files, while not understanding that there's no point at
all rendering / converting hundreds of raw files, perhaps unless you
intend to print every image at 12x18. The downside is that you've got
to know how to set the camera, not adopt a lazy raw workflow. The old
downside of card space doesn't apply any more, cards are cheap, and most
cameras have enough buffer so that you don't need expensive super fast
cards unless you're a habitual machine gunner.


"Faster" than gimp? Not sure what that means. Gimp seems fast enough
rendering large image files. Like full photoshop, there's a learning
curve. Recent versions seem very stable.

it means that it takes less time to do the same step in photoshop than
in gimp with the same image on the same hardware. many operations are
real time (e.g., levels, curves), even with *huge* images, while on
gimp, it lags, and sometimes by quite a bit. opening raw images is
also faster, and there are numerous shortcuts to improve workflow.

Seems much the same to me, but I don't do levels etc using Gimp.


Gimp has some better features than photoshop. The perspective clone
tool and perspective correction tools are IMO better.

how so?
My apologies - probably personal preference, but I prefer the interface
for some of the tools. The perspective correction is technically
better, as interpolation includes the option for lanczos.

Resizing /
resampling is better, with Lanczos interpolation included. Jpeg
compression options and preview is also IMO better. Gimp is also now
ICC colour aware.

barely. and photoshop has been colour managed for a decade.

The only real downsides are that it's limited to 8
bit colour, and totally useless (IMO) for printing.

that's one of many downsides. another huge drawback is that it lacks
adjustment layers. photoshop also has smart filters and camera raw can
work on a smart object for completely non-destructive editing.

I have no need *ever* for adjustment layers. In fact with NX, being
able to do gradient blends, selective painting in and out of adjustments
etc without consciously having to use layers at all is wonderful.
That's even before you get to u-points.


cs4 is going to advance it even further.

I'm not bashing PS, but I don't believe it's the tool for every fool.

In article , Me
wrote:

which raw output is 'best' is the subject of endless debates. camera
raw is considered to be among the better ones, as are the camera
maker's own software. also, with the new profiles, camera raw can
produce the same tonality and colour as nikon's software (or others),
so it's very difficult to even tell the difference anymore.
ACR just isn't as good as NX converting *nef files. It's not a
subjective preference - the difference is quite clear.

which raw processor is very subjective. some people prefer camera raw,
others prefer nikon's software (or canon's), bibble, capture one, dcraw
or one of the many others. each one does things a little differently.
most of the time, the technical differences are minor and won't even be
noticable in a print or when displayed on a screen.

With CaptureNX, though many users haven't worked it out yet, with
shareable (between cameras or users) "picture controls" you can shoot
RAW+JPEG with the same settings applied to the jpeg as would be
favourite standard adjustments using the raw converter. That means only
ever using the raw file if significant pp is required.

and with something like lightroom or aperture, shooting raw+jpeg is
redundant. working with raws is the same as working with jpegs and
it's just as fast (the difference is hardly noticable).

It's a great
system for anyone shooting a lot of images but still wanting raw - but
not understood by many Nikon users, who complain about how slow it can
be rendering nef files,

nikon's software is not all that fast.

while not understanding that there's no point at
all rendering / converting hundreds of raw files, perhaps unless you
intend to print every image at 12x18. The downside is that you've got
to know how to set the camera, not adopt a lazy raw workflow.

i don't know what a 'lazy raw workflow' is.

The old
downside of card space doesn't apply any more, cards are cheap, and most
cameras have enough buffer so that you don't need expensive super fast
cards unless you're a habitual machine gunner.

that part is true, but fast cards help in copying *to* the computer
more so than speeding up the camera, and that can be quite useful on a
shoot.

that's one of many downsides. another huge drawback is that it lacks
adjustment layers. photoshop also has smart filters and camera raw can
work on a smart object for completely non-destructive editing.

I have no need *ever* for adjustment layers. In fact with NX, being
able to do gradient blends, selective painting in and out of adjustments
etc without consciously having to use layers at all is wonderful.

is this about gimp or nx? i haven't used capture nx much but it is
supposed to have non-destructive editing. gimp doesn't have it at all,
and that's a huge issue.

nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

which raw output is 'best' is the subject of endless debates. camera
raw is considered to be among the better ones, as are the camera
maker's own software. also, with the new profiles, camera raw can
produce the same tonality and colour as nikon's software (or others),
so it's very difficult to even tell the difference anymore.
ACR just isn't as good as NX converting *nef files. It's not a
subjective preference - the difference is quite clear.

which raw processor is very subjective. some people prefer camera raw,
others prefer nikon's software (or canon's), bibble, capture one, dcraw
or one of the many others. each one does things a little differently.
most of the time, the technical differences are minor and won't even be
noticable in a print or when displayed on a screen.

I don't agree. The difference in the ability of the raw processor to
extract detail is visible. If you look at the Nikon D300 review at
DPReview, there are test chart shots with various raw converters, very
clearly showing that CaptureNX extracted more detail from nef files,
with less artifacts near nyquist than any other raw converter, incl.
ACR. It's picky - 100% pixel view is perhaps looking too close - but
it's very clear to see if you look, and for people who don't look - hey
perhaps Ken Rockwell is right, and everyone should just use jpeg...

With CaptureNX, though many users haven't worked it out yet, with
shareable (between cameras or users) "picture controls" you can shoot
RAW+JPEG with the same settings applied to the jpeg as would be
favourite standard adjustments using the raw converter. That means only
ever using the raw file if significant pp is required.

and with something like lightroom or aperture, shooting raw+jpeg is
redundant. working with raws is the same as working with jpegs and
it's just as fast (the difference is hardly noticable).

You miss the point. If you use the workflow as it's possible to do,
then you don't need to edit many (*nef) shots at all.

It's a great
system for anyone shooting a lot of images but still wanting raw - but
not understood by many Nikon users, who complain about how slow it can
be rendering nef files,

nikon's software is not all that fast.
Sure - it's mainly slowed down by the raw converter re-compressing the
/edited/ embedded jpeg. I shudder to think what it will be like with
24mp D3x files - a fast computer won't be a luxury - it will be essential.

while not understanding that there's no point at
all rendering / converting hundreds of raw files, perhaps unless you
intend to print every image at 12x18. The downside is that you've got
to know how to set the camera, not adopt a lazy raw workflow.

i don't know what a 'lazy raw workflow' is.

It's forgetting about camera settings like w/b etc secure in the
knowledge that it it doesn't matter as because it's raw you can fix it
later. But that means sitting in front of a computer and actually doing
it. If you nail the jpegs, then you're already there with NX most of
the time. You've just got to be able to use the camera (heh).

The old
downside of card space doesn't apply any more, cards are cheap, and most
cameras have enough buffer so that you don't need expensive super fast
cards unless you're a habitual machine gunner.

that part is true, but fast cards help in copying *to* the computer
more so than speeding up the camera, and that can be quite useful on a
shoot.


that's one of many downsides. another huge drawback is that it lacks
adjustment layers. photoshop also has smart filters and camera raw can
work on a smart object for completely non-destructive editing.

I have no need *ever* for adjustment layers. In fact with NX, being
able to do gradient blends, selective painting in and out of adjustments
etc without consciously having to use layers at all is wonderful.

is this about gimp or nx? i haven't used capture nx much but it is
supposed to have non-destructive editing. gimp doesn't have it at all,
and that's a huge issue.

Well, the OP has NX, and that is a very good program (though often
maligned). For post-processing that might be needed *after* doing the
hard stuff in NX, then I don't see the need for full PS - Gimp does well
for cloning etc., but YMMV. (and as I think I've said, I use PS anyway -
because I want/need good soft-proofing and gamut warning - but that's
because I'm fussy about prints).
As far as non-destructive editing goes, then yes, NX does it, but saves
edits as metadata within the *nef. For long term archiving, I think
that's a big advantage (sure some potential - but unlikely - pitfalls too).

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

It's a viable solution, is programmable (plugins, even the
sourcecode is there for you if you should need it), costs only
the time to learn it (and there are books about that, even no-pay
ones). You probably can buy support from different companies,
should you require that.

So, basically, try it, if it's not to your liking, not much is
lost. You might want to google "gimp for photographers", too ...

-Wolfgang