A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GIMP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 1st 08, 01:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Doug Payne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default GIMP

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 free. What have you got to lose by trying it for yourself, but for
a little time?
  #22  
Old September 1st 08, 02:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
James[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default GIMP

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:05:07 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:



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.


I have not had an issue with the clone or spot tools as of yet but then I
shoot strictly nature so its easier to correct without seeing the
correction.

James
  #23  
Old September 1st 08, 04:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default GIMP

Me wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article SrEuk.209$sq3.51@trnddc07, Mike -- Email Ignored
wrote:

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


photoshop elements is a much better choice. another alternative is
adobe lightroom, which can edit images nondestructively as well as
manage image libraries.



Why is elements a better choice for that?


It's a better choice generally. User interface is better than the
quirky Gimp - Gimp is sometimes in realtime with preview; sometimes set
and wait and retry. Some filters in 8 bit/color; some not. Versions of
Gimp that do wxyz some that do uvwx but none that do uvwxyz...

(To be fair, not all of the features in Elements work above 8/b/col
either; but you can process an image at one level (16b/col) and then
when done, convert the image to 8 bit to continue with the other
filters/features).

Elements has the Adobe raw import built in and as new cameras come out
and you need the raw you DL it and drop it in the right directory and
it's done. Gimps gets raw via an add on s/w package (whether this is a
plug in or a pre-process, I'm not sure... but it certainly means
maintaining both Gimp and the bolt on s/w.

You can try Elements for free for 30 days or so (and you can get Gimp
for free, period). I've used only v. 3 of Elements and the prior "PS
lite editions" and they do 98% of what any serious amateur will need.
(I now use CS3).

For the OP, you can get rid of dust spots against skies etc using NX ,
selection tool & blur, or painting them out using the brush tool (select
b/g colour using colour picker). Obviously not for more complicated
cloning etc.


Elements. Or CS3. Or Lightroom. But Elements is the least expensive.

--
-- 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.
  #24  
Old September 1st 08, 07:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default GIMP

In article , Me
wrote:

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...


i just took a quick look at the review and i saw comparisons with raw
from other cameras, but i didn't see where he compared camera raw and
nx, let alone comparing with other raw converters. and dpreview is
just one example, there are other sample images that show different
results. that's why it's subjective; people like different 'looks.'

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.


there's no need to do much editing in a lightroom workflow, unless one
wants to.

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.


i found it slow just to open the nef, as well as making adjustments,
compared with photoshop & camera raw. are you saying it rewrites the
embedded jpeg *each* time an adjustment is made? i would expect that
it does that at the end.

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).


the *full* photoshop is overkill. elements is most of what most people
need at a very reasonable price (and it's often bundled for free with
various products).

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).


it avoids having to deal with sidecar files, but it risks corrupting
the .nef itself when rewriting it. i'm of the opinion that the raw
file should never be altered, with all changes stored separately.
  #25  
Old September 1st 08, 08:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default GIMP ... yes, it sucks

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


I just downloaded a recent v. of GIMP for iMac. Runs under X11.

As I wrote earlier it does not support 16 bit/color very well. In fact
on loading a scan from yesterday (TIF) it immediately declared
incompetence and converted to 8 bit/color on loading.

For light editing this is not a huge deal, I admit, but it does make
changing contrast/bright/colors, etc. a lossy deal.

The USM is ________HORRIBLE________
a) The preview is on a tiny area of the scene and you have to move
sliders around to select an area (imagine a 8500 x 8500 pixel image and
preview area of approx 200x200 and you want to check for detail and
halos at a dozen places... Oh my... crap!

b) and then the results of the USM are just plain terrible compared to
those in photoshop.

It did, BTW, a reasonable job reading a DNG file and a Minolta raw file
(Maxxum 7D) but converted both to 8 bits on load, of course.

Really, I wish the Gimp folks well, but it is not something anyone
serious about photography would use. Get Elements for much better
results and get CS3 for heavy lifting.

--
-- 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.
  #26  
Old September 1st 08, 08:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default GIMP ... yes, it sucks

Alan Browne wrote:
I just downloaded a recent v. of GIMP for iMac. Runs under X11.

As I wrote earlier it does not support 16 bit/color very well. In fact
on loading a scan from yesterday (TIF) it immediately declared
incompetence and converted to 8 bit/color on loading.

For light editing this is not a huge deal, I admit, but it does make
changing contrast/bright/colors, etc. a lossy deal.


When done correctly, with the RAW converter (at 12 or 14 bit
depth) during the conversion process, it makes virtually no
difference for editing photographs.

The USM is ________HORRIBLE________


Actually, it's great.

a) The preview is on a tiny area of the scene and you have to move
sliders around to select an area (imagine a 8500 x 8500 pixel image and
preview area of approx 200x200 and you want to check for detail and
halos at a dozen places... Oh my... crap!


Thank goodness for that! Instead of waiting while it applies
USM to your imaginary 72MP image, you only have to wait while it
does a 200x200 image. That allows you to very precisely adjust
for the correct USM.

b) and then the results of the USM are just plain terrible compared to
those in photoshop.


See above, about adjusting it correctly. That does help
greatly.

It did, BTW, a reasonable job reading a DNG file and a Minolta raw file
(Maxxum 7D) but converted both to 8 bits on load, of course.

Really, I wish the Gimp folks well, but it is not something anyone
serious about photography would use. Get Elements for much better
results and get CS3 for heavy lifting.


The fact that you can't use it properly does not indicate a flaw
with the program.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #27  
Old September 1st 08, 09:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default GIMP ... yes, it sucks

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
I just downloaded a recent v. of GIMP for iMac. Runs under X11.

As I wrote earlier it does not support 16 bit/color very well. In fact
on loading a scan from yesterday (TIF) it immediately declared
incompetence and converted to 8 bit/color on loading.

For light editing this is not a huge deal, I admit, but it does make
changing contrast/bright/colors, etc. a lossy deal.


When done correctly, with the RAW converter (at 12 or 14 bit
depth) during the conversion process, it makes virtually no
difference for editing photographs.


Of course it does in any image that gets a lot of color, tone, contrast,
brightness, etc. adjustments in edit before final rendering as
quantization errors accumulate rapidly with 8 bit/color depth. This is
so basic.

You're right about "done correctly" and that is in doing it at 16
b/color before rendering to JPG.


The USM is ________HORRIBLE________


Actually, it's great.


No. In PS CS3, a very light touch USM on an area of fine detail worked
fine. Identical settings (emphasis is on _light_) in gimp on the same
image created halos as well as deepened blacks with blocking up in
shadow areas. This likely includes further artifacts from the 8b/color
processing whereas in CS3 it is done at 16b/color.

Plain horrible.

a) The preview is on a tiny area of the scene and you have to move
sliders around to select an area (imagine a 8500 x 8500 pixel image and
preview area of approx 200x200 and you want to check for detail and
halos at a dozen places... Oh my... crap!


Thank goodness for that! Instead of waiting while it applies
USM to your imaginary 72MP image, you only have to wait while it
does a 200x200 image. That allows you to very precisely adjust
for the correct USM.


Imaginary? A 4000 dpi Nikon 9000ED scan of a 6x6 (56mm x 56mm to be
precise) slide is actually 8818 x 8818 pixels for about 77 Mpix. I did
a half dozen of these yesterday alone ... these can easily print to 30 x
30 inches with only the lightest touch of USM.

And of course, CS3 does this with all of the image on the screen
previewed... as one does USM at at least a 100% view to see the effect
and to make sure oversharpenning does not occur, the entire image is not
previewed, but it's a lot more than 200x200 pixels or so...

I suppose on your snapshots, Gimp USM is likely fine, but on 8800x8800
pixel posters with area selections for different levels of sharpening,
tedious Gimp USM does not even begin to cover the problem.

b) and then the results of the USM are just plain terrible compared to
those in photoshop.


See above, about adjusting it correctly. That does help
greatly.


See above. I use USM a lot, in selected areas and I use it as lightly
as possible by examining its effects throughout contrast areas in the
whole image. Gimp USM is not only a poor tool for this ... but it does
not do what it says it will do.

It did, BTW, a reasonable job reading a DNG file and a Minolta raw file
(Maxxum 7D) but converted both to 8 bits on load, of course.

Really, I wish the Gimp folks well, but it is not something anyone
serious about photography would use. Get Elements for much better
results and get CS3 for heavy lifting.


The fact that you can't use it properly does not indicate a flaw
with the program.


Geez. I've used Gimp many times over the years and it has improved in
some areas; in the meantime PS Elements (!) and of course CS3 was always
ahead at all times, including now.

Really: Gimp is not enough despite being free.

--
-- 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.
  #28  
Old September 1st 08, 09:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 796
Default GIMP ... yes, it sucks

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
I just downloaded a recent v. of GIMP for iMac. Runs under X11.

As I wrote earlier it does not support 16 bit/color very well. In fact
on loading a scan from yesterday (TIF) it immediately declared
incompetence and converted to 8 bit/color on loading.

For light editing this is not a huge deal, I admit, but it does make
changing contrast/bright/colors, etc. a lossy deal.


When done correctly, with the RAW converter (at 12 or 14 bit
depth) during the conversion process, it makes virtually no
difference for editing photographs.

The USM is ________HORRIBLE________


Actually, it's great.

That's my opinion too - nothing at all wrong with implementation of USM
in Gimp!
(oops... except for the fact that the slider for "radius" is set by
default to 5, and resetting it doesn't "stick" after closing the program
- only for the session)

a) The preview is on a tiny area of the scene and you have to move
sliders around to select an area (imagine a 8500 x 8500 pixel image and
preview area of approx 200x200 and you want to check for detail and
halos at a dozen places... Oh my... crap!


Thank goodness for that! Instead of waiting while it applies
USM to your imaginary 72MP image, you only have to wait while it
does a 200x200 image. That allows you to very precisely adjust
for the correct USM.

b) and then the results of the USM are just plain terrible compared to
those in photoshop.


See above, about adjusting it correctly. That does help
greatly.

Ummm...
If you resize the USM tool window, you automatically resize to scale the
preview window. If you click the 4-way arrow icon, you can easily
select where on the entire frame the preview is taken from.
Jeesh - it's not even "not difficult", it's plain easy and straight-forward.


It did, BTW, a reasonable job reading a DNG file and a Minolta raw file
(Maxxum 7D) but converted both to 8 bits on load, of course.

Really, I wish the Gimp folks well, but it is not something anyone
serious about photography would use. Get Elements for much better
results and get CS3 for heavy lifting.


The fact that you can't use it properly does not indicate a flaw
with the program.

Agreed.
  #29  
Old September 1st 08, 09:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default GIMP ... yes, it sucks

Me wrote:

Agreed.


Hardly. See my reply to Floyd.

--
-- 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.
  #30  
Old September 1st 08, 09:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 796
Default GIMP ... yes, it sucks

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:

Agreed.


Hardly. See my reply to Floyd.

Where you sarcastically denounce his photos as "snapshots" whilst
providing anecdotes to support your own brilliance?
No thanks.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gimp (was Which Software) Jerry Digital Photography 2 December 24th 06 01:51 AM
The GIMP on the go - in your PDA! Mike Henley Digital Photography 2 October 30th 05 08:20 AM
Do I want The Gimp??? royroy Digital Photography 52 August 6th 04 04:44 AM
The Gimp Allodoxaphobia Digital Photography 14 July 10th 04 06:59 AM
help with the GIMP Peter Medium Format Photography Equipment 5 April 13th 04 12:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.