Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
these things using Photoshop. See for example
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration2/index.html

Read it a little closer Eric, Roger Clark did not use
PhotoShop for Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional
sharpening, he also didn't even mention the Wavelet
sharpening that I have previously commented on.

read it closer yourself. what he *didn't* use was the gimp.

Nobody said he used GIMP. But Eric said he used
Photoshop, which was not even close to true.

try reading it again, this time slowly, before you stick your foot in
your mouth any further than it already is.

roger said he used photoshop cs5 for two of the three comparisons
(unsharp mask and smart sharpen) and imagesplus for one comparison
(richardson-lucy), with the blurring for the tests using photoshop's
gaussian blur.

in other words, most things were done with photoshop, and had he been
aware of a richardson-lucy plug-in (they do exist), he could have done
all of it in photoshop.

so eric's statement that he used photoshop is very close to true.

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-08 00:12:15 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

Why is it you believe PS users don't know the difference
between *High Pass Sharpening* & *USM*? Some of us
simpletons have a fair idea of the concept.

Very few photographers have any idea what the difference
is. That includes PS users, and it includes those who
post here.

I have no concept of what *you* as an individual know about
it. Enlighten me!

Does "Bicubic sharper" or "Bicubic smoother" have more or less
ringing, and how does that compare to Unsharp Mask?

How about haloing?

Why does photoshop use Bicubic sharper for down sampling and
Bicubic smoother for upsampling. Which is related to a Mitchell
filter and in what way, and the same with some form of Lanczos
filter?

Or just tell me that none of that is relevant, and why...

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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

Why is it you believe PS users don't know the difference
between *High Pass Sharpening* & *USM*? Some of us
simpletons have a fair idea of the concept.

Very few photographers have any idea what the difference
is. That includes PS users, and it includes those who
post here.

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:54:30 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
these things using Photoshop. See for example
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration2/index.html

Read it a little closer Eric, Roger Clark did not use
PhotoShop for Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional
sharpening, he also didn't even mention the Wavelet
sharpening that I have previously commented on.

read it closer yourself. what he *didn't* use was the gimp.

Nobody said he used GIMP. But Eric said he used
Photoshop, which was not even close to true.

I did not say the article I cited described how he did all these
things with photoshop. I said he has published 'articles' (note
plural) and cited this one as an example.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:12:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

according to *you*.

I've never owned a copy myself. I have never had it on
a computer at home. I have never "used" it in the sense
that it was my normal editor.

Only you have ever said that I've never used it at all, in
any way.

And that is totally irrelevant anyway!

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

This article may be of interest to some:
http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotograp...arpening.shtml
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:40:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

none of that is relevant.

photoshop can do whatever a user wants and so can other apps.

Not true. The user can do whatever it allows. There is
very little that it doesn't allow, but for those who
have the needs and do understand the distinctions, what
it doesn't allow is very significant.

there is *nothing* that photoshop doesn't allow. photoshop supports
numerous types of plug-ins so whatever it is you want to do can be
added if it's not already there.

the gimp also supports plug-ins, but since photoshop is far more
popular than the gimp, developers will target it first. that makes
photoshop more likely to have fewer limitations.

it's possible that *some* photoshop plug-ins can work in the gimp but
only a small subset and not always with full compatibility.

and you keep ignoring the user experience. although many things can be
done in both, it's easier and faster to do them in photoshop in most
cases (there are always exceptions, usually obscure ones that don't
matter much). that's why pros almost always choose to use photoshop.
they don't have time to screw around.

"Can you resample an image to 4 times its original size
using a Mitchell filter, rather than whatever it is that
"Smoother" means in "Bicubic Smoother"? Does it make any
difference to you?

For that matter, when an image is resampled in PhotoShop
is it first converted to unity gamma (i.e., 0.4545 as
opposed to 2.2), or not?"
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:54:30 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
these things using Photoshop. See for example
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration2/index.html

Read it a little closer Eric, Roger Clark did not use
PhotoShop for Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional
sharpening, he also didn't even mention the Wavelet
sharpening that I have previously commented on.

read it closer yourself. what he *didn't* use was the gimp.

Nobody said he used GIMP. But Eric said he used
Photoshop, which was not even close to true.

I did not say the article I cited described how he did all these
things with photoshop. I said he has published 'articles' (note
plural) and cited this one as an example.

"Clark Vision have published articles describing their
tests with all these things using Photoshop. See for
example"

The one example does not show what you said, and
specifically says otherwise. The other articles that
Roger Clark has published don't either.

Oddly enough, given two or three other comments you've
made, it does appear that you may be the only one
responding on this topic that actually does understand
the significance of these various algorithms to
photographers!

In particular, you suggested this well written article:

http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotograp...arpening.shtml

Which near the end has this statement:

"By strengthening a mask in a "high" layer
corresponding to a small blur, you increase the Mach
bands in the small features (generally called high
frequency components of an image for obvious
reasons). By strengthening a mask in a "low" layer
corresponding to a large blur, you increase the Mach
bands in really large features"

How many here will recognize that as essentially saying
that wavelet sharpening gives you the same effect as
using both USM and HP sharpen together? Except
that with wavelet sharpening the algorithm spreads it
over the entire range, not just at two specific spatial
frequencies.

I usually have described that by saying an high pass
sharpen tool works on multiple transitions in sequence,
while a USM tool works on single transitions. Both have
a very high frequency component, but with a different
energy distribution.

This is not just an off the wall discussion of theory,
it's about how to get better photographs!

Or, one can do what Savageduck did, citing two images to
demonstrate exactly the point that I made: most readers
here (and specifically him) are completely unaware of
the significant distinctions in how and how to use different
sharpen tools or why there are different filters than
"Smoother" and "Sharper" for Bicubic resampling in good
software tools.

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

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets
the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can
rattle off.

I agree completely.

nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say
'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
methods.

it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
why make things more complicated than they need to be?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
these things using Photoshop. See for example
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration2/index.html

Read it a little closer Eric, Roger Clark did not use
PhotoShop for Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional
sharpening, he also didn't even mention the Wavelet
sharpening that I have previously commented on.

read it closer yourself. what he *didn't* use was the gimp.

Nobody said he used GIMP. But Eric said he used
Photoshop, which was not even close to true.

I did not say the article I cited described how he did all these
things with photoshop. I said he has published 'articles' (note
plural) and cited this one as an example.

"Clark Vision have published articles describing their
tests with all these things using Photoshop. See for
example"

The one example does not show what you said, and
specifically says otherwise. The other articles that
Roger Clark has published don't either.

the article eric posted says roger used photoshop for *two* out of the
three comparisons and also for the original preparation of the images
prior to the tests. only one out of the three used something else.

you're once again, wrong and as usual, refuse to admit it.

...snip..

Or, one can do what Savageduck did, citing two images to
demonstrate exactly the point that I made: most readers
here (and specifically him) are completely unaware of
the significant distinctions in how and how to use different
sharpen tools or why there are different filters than
"Smoother" and "Sharper" for Bicubic resampling in good
software tools.

what you miss is that people do *not* need to know about any of that to
make good images.

what adobe has done with photoshop is simplify it so that non-geeks can
use all of the various algorithms while retaining all of the geeky
features for those who are geeks. there is no limitation in the app.
it's all there for those who want it and usable for those who don't.
that's what makes an app powerful.

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

In the past, I've found dcraw useful to get a quick look at things
by extracting the jpeg thumbnail (dcraw -e).

once again, more work than needed. on a mac, there's no need to run
anything (especially using a command line). a simple tap of the
space bar gives a quick look of nearly any file (photos, pdfs,
spreadsheets, zip files and much more), which is why it's called
quick look.

So how does quick look know which file you would like to see?

the ones you have selected. obviously.

Selected where?

in finder.

Oh, you mean the file manager, that you ran by clicking the finder icon in
the dock

you must be running something to be able to see files to
select.

finder is part of the operating system. it's always running. it's 'the
desktop'. users don't 'run' finder.

It's an app that's autostarted when you log in. It lives at
/System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app

notice the .app at the end.

That's not some sort of file manager you are running is it? And what
do you think happens when you tap the spacebar? It runs some viewing
software, so that's 2 things you've run.

first of all, there are dozens of processes running, without the user
having to run them manually, including finder. tapping the space bar is
just another keystroke interpreted by finder. it does not run a second
app.

So you are running the first app then?

as far as the user is concerned, they click on one or more files, tap
the space bar and see the contents for nearly any file type. photos are
shown as photos, movies play in a window, spreadsheets are shown as
spreadsheets, etc.

I'm not talking about "as far as the user is concerned". You said you don't
have to run anything to have a preview display. I'm saying you do.

All of this is pointless, I'm just trying to point out that your mac isn't
some wonder machine that can do loads of things no one else can, it's just a
computer and works like other computers. It's not magic.

--
sid