Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.04.08, 16:54 , sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

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.

You're being pedantic. The Finder is part of the middle-are that is an
integral part of OS X and its UI. No different than a folder view in
Unity.

No, just being accurate. Finder is run as part of the UI, it's not part of
the OS. You are correct in saying "No different than a folder view in
Unity." though in my case Dolphin in KDE

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.

It's a given that any function on a computer has to execute code to do
something.

Quite.

Finder is "middleware" that is part and parcel of OS X as a
distribution. The user doesn't add it (as he would The Gimp or dcraw)
it is there. Indeed it's not possible to casually remove it from the
dock (it can be done but so indirectly as to be unknown by 99% of OS X
users).

Anyone who wants to can find out how with a cursory google search.
Apparently it can be done and with no detriment to the OS. There are third
party replacements out there so one does not need the finder supplied by
Apple. It's crap anyway according to nospam.

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.

No - but it is delivered with photographic workflow in mind - including
in Finder.

So what is delivered with a new Mac that is particularly with a photographic
workflow in mind, that isn't delivered with other OS'

--
sid

In article , sid
wrote:

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.

You're being pedantic. The Finder is part of the middle-are that is an
integral part of OS X and its UI. No different than a folder view in
Unity.

No, just being accurate.

very little of what you've said about macs has been accurate.

Finder is run as part of the UI, it's not part of
the OS. You are correct in saying "No different than a folder view in
Unity." though in my case Dolphin in KDE

nope. finder is part of the os, ships with the os and isn't anything
that can be changed.

if you want to draw a line in the sand (something which is pointless
but you seem to want to do it anyway), then it would be between the
darwin kernel and everything above it (cocoa, carbon, foundation, aqua,
quartz, quicktime and more).

Finder is "middleware" that is part and parcel of OS X as a
distribution. The user doesn't add it (as he would The Gimp or dcraw)
it is there. Indeed it's not possible to casually remove it from the
dock (it can be done but so indirectly as to be unknown by 99% of OS X
users).

Anyone who wants to can find out how with a cursory google search.
Apparently it can be done and with no detriment to the OS. There are third
party replacements out there so one does not need the finder supplied by
Apple. It's crap anyway according to nospam.

removing finder is a huge detriment to mac os. it has numerous negative
side effects, including preventing the user from launching apps and
potentially making the system non-bootable in some cases. it's not
done.

the third party finder replacements can't completely replace finder
even if the user wanted to, plus they are worse than finder is anyway.
they are normally run alongside finder, with the user just ignoring
finder most of the time.

it's no secret i don't like finder but it mostly does what it claims,
just not particularly well, and with some very stupid bugs.

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.

No - but it is delivered with photographic workflow in mind - including
in Finder.

So what is delivered with a new Mac that is particularly with a photographic
workflow in mind, that isn't delivered with other OS'

mac os x.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:07:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I've been housebound for nearly 7 months and I have had plenty of time
to explore the capabilities of PS (ever since I subscribed last
November). I know what many of the various functions do, at least as
well as Adobe will let me know. That includes the various sharpening
functions. However, as far as I know, Photoshop has no plug in which
will do wavelet sharpening (I could be wrong) but as I have recently
posted Paint Shop Pro does.
http://aftershotpro.com/plugins/inde...aveletsharpen3

There are other plugins for PSP for which, as far as I know, there are
no equivalents in PS.

http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~raananf/projects/eaw/
http://6sightreport.com/2010/04/26/wavelets-sharpen-photoshop-images/

Technology for ³Edge Avoiding Wavelets² is in the improved new
Sharpen Tool in Photoshop CS5 and its ŒProtect Detail¹ feature ‹
technology licensed from Yissum Research Development in Jerusalem,
Israel.

OK, it's there. But well hidden and with it's name disguised.


and for plug-ins, this goes back nearly 20 years, for photoshop 5 (not
cs5):
http://cas.ensmp.fr/~chaplais/Photoshop_Wavelet_Workout/

also:
http://www.topazlabs.com/vivacity/
The wavelet-based filter in Vivacity offers quick and effective noise
reduction that does not destroy detail. Learn more about the new
Topaz DeNoise.

and fwiw:
http://www.neatimage.com/mac/features.html
Neat Image incorporates the most advanced noise reduction algorithms
in the industry that surpass the quality of all classic noise
reduction methods and even that of the wavelet-based methods.
Although the wavelet-based methods were developed relatively
recently, Neat Image uses an even newer and more efficient approach
to noise reduction.

The Mac stuff is interesting but of no use to me. But I didn't know of
the embedded wavelets and I am grateful to you for letting me know of
their presence.

That I didn't know wavelets were already present in Photoshop is a
consequence of their habit of giving names to features and functions
which give no real guide as to what those features or functions might
actually be doing. You will no doubt argue that this is OK as the
average photoshop user will not be able to understand the mechanical
workings of the software even if it is explained to them. They would
rather know that such and such an effect can be achieved with the
gizmo function and have no interest in knowing how it is done.

Well that's not me. I've experimented in the past with multiple passes
of unsharp mask sharpening at ever reducing margins and have been very
pleased with the result. Doing this is somewhat laborious and I'm more
than slightly pleased to know that PS has got it built in. I wonder
what else I would like to know?

In any case, thank you very much.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:07:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
uncomplicated and efficient system.

it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any
good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

Why learn a new way of doing something when you can laready do it
without much apparent difficulty?

because the productivity increase is huge and the amount of time to
learn something new is small (often negligible).

That certainly isn't the case if you have to learn something like
photoshop.

why buy a newer and faster computer? your old 486 could do things
without any apparent difficulty.

Every computer upgrade I have made here at home has been forced by
software and OS upgrades. The computer upgrade comes with the new
territory.

maybe you have more free time than you know what to do with, but most
people don't, which is why choosing the most efficient and productive
way to do what needs to be done is a good idea and that *doesn't* mean
compromising the results, as certain people here claim.

i'm getting the same (or better) results in *far* less time with
lightroom than i ever did with photoshop, and i can still use photoshop
for the occasional images that need additional work. overall, it's a
huge, huge productivity boost.

For a time saving you describe as *far* less you must be processing an
awful lot of photographs. How come you never have any to show?

several reasons, none of which change the points i make. whether
someone can be more productive in lightroom has *nothing* to do with
how good or bad my photos are.

I am realy questioning whether or not your description of "*far* less"
time is accurate.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-04-09 23:06:06 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:07:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I've been housebound for nearly 7 months and I have had plenty of time
to explore the capabilities of PS (ever since I subscribed last
November). I know what many of the various functions do, at least as
well as Adobe will let me know. That includes the various sharpening
functions. However, as far as I know, Photoshop has no plug in which
will do wavelet sharpening (I could be wrong) but as I have recently
posted Paint Shop Pro does.
http://aftershotpro.com/plugins/inde...aveletsharpen3

There are other plugins for PSP for which, as far as I know, there are
no equivalents in PS.

http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~raananf/projects/eaw/
http://6sightreport.com/2010/04/26/wavelets-sharpen-photoshop-images/

Technology for ³Edge Avoiding Wavelets² is in the improved new
Sharpen Tool in Photoshop CS5 and its ŒProtect Detail¹ feature ‹
technology licensed from Yissum Research Development in Jerusalem,
Israel.

OK, it's there. But well hidden and with it's name disguised.


and for plug-ins, this goes back nearly 20 years, for photoshop 5 (not
cs5):
http://cas.ensmp.fr/~chaplais/Photoshop_Wavelet_Workout/

also:
http://www.topazlabs.com/vivacity/
The wavelet-based filter in Vivacity offers quick and effective noise
reduction that does not destroy detail. Learn more about the new
Topaz DeNoise.

and fwiw:
http://www.neatimage.com/mac/features.html
Neat Image incorporates the most advanced noise reduction algorithms
in the industry that surpass the quality of all classic noise
reduction methods and even that of the wavelet-based methods.
Although the wavelet-based methods were developed relatively
recently, Neat Image uses an even newer and more efficient approach
to noise reduction.

The Mac stuff is interesting but of no use to me. But I didn't know of
the embedded wavelets and I am grateful to you for letting me know of
their presence.

That I didn't know wavelets were already present in Photoshop is a
consequence of their habit of giving names to features and functions
which give no real guide as to what those features or functions might
actually be doing. You will no doubt argue that this is OK as the
average photoshop user will not be able to understand the mechanical
workings of the software even if it is explained to them. They would
rather know that such and such an effect can be achieved with the
gizmo function and have no interest in knowing how it is done.

Exactly. That has been part of the point I have been attempting to
make. Just because Adobe (and some others) have chosen not to give some
features their geekiy and esoteric labels, doesn't mean they are not
employed in their products.

Well that's not me. I've experimented in the past with multiple passes
of unsharp mask sharpening at ever reducing margins and have been very
pleased with the result. Doing this is somewhat laborious and I'm more
than slightly pleased to know that PS has got it built in. I wonder
what else I would like to know?

You might like to know when and how to use *Smart Sharpen* properly.
(including the use of Smart Object layers which makes all the filter
adjustments non-destructive with the ability to revisit.) When Smart
Sharpen was first introduced it was an improvement over USM and the
Smart Sharpen algorithm for PS CS6/CC is a complete revamp from that
found in CS5.

You might like to know when and how to use sharpening in ACR/Camera RAW
filter(CRF) & LR5 including how to use masking in ACR/CRF & LR5.

You might like to know when and how to use the *Shake Reduction* filter
(also better used on a Smart Object adjustment layer).
....and there are time High Pass Filter sharpening can be useful.

In any case, thank you very much.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/6/2014 11:10 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.04.05, 22:59 , 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?

Not at all.

I'm saying that the OS' of choice are OS X and Windows and the core tool
is Photoshop. And in the communities where they are used (professional
photography and graphics arts) they are the expected base tools of the
trade. Because of that, there is a lot more support. A lot more 3rd
party software. A lot more knowledge.

Linux would be okay for such if Adobe released Photoshop for Linux. But
they don't. (It's very low use generally for desktop environments and
bare existence amongst photographers doesn't make for a good investment).

It seems that only Floyd has kept the original poster's question in
mind. The poster didn't ask what OS or what software would be an
improvement on what he has. He asked what can be done to work with
what he has.

Floyd - presumably - did a good job in answering this. I say
"presumably" because I use neither Linux nor Gimp and don't know how
practical Floyd's response was.

It's too bad that questions like the original poster's get diverted
into battles over OS and software with the same old points being
rehashed over-and-over. Nothing new was brought up.


Actually, I think Floyd's help has been spot on, and practical. Is he a
bit wordy, yes. Is he opinionated, yes. But I think his advice is sound
and well intentioned. When he gives advice, you get advice, not an ego
lesson.



--
PeterN

On 2014-04-10 00:05:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/6/2014 11:10 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.04.05, 22:59 , 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?

Not at all.

I'm saying that the OS' of choice are OS X and Windows and the core tool
is Photoshop. And in the communities where they are used (professional
photography and graphics arts) they are the expected base tools of the
trade. Because of that, there is a lot more support. A lot more 3rd
party software. A lot more knowledge.

Linux would be okay for such if Adobe released Photoshop for Linux. But
they don't. (It's very low use generally for desktop environments and
bare existence amongst photographers doesn't make for a good investment).

It seems that only Floyd has kept the original poster's question in
mind. The poster didn't ask what OS or what software would be an
improvement on what he has. He asked what can be done to work with
what he has.

Floyd - presumably - did a good job in answering this. I say
"presumably" because I use neither Linux nor Gimp and don't know how
practical Floyd's response was.

It's too bad that questions like the original poster's get diverted
into battles over OS and software with the same old points being
rehashed over-and-over. Nothing new was brought up.


Actually, I think Floyd's help has been spot on, and practical. Is he a
bit wordy, yes. Is he opinionated, yes. But I think his advice is sound
and well intentioned. When he gives advice, you get advice,

That has always been true of Floyd. He has a wealth of knowledge, is
opinionated and often provides good and insightful information.

not an ego lesson.

However, Floyd is all about self-inflated ego.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014.04.08, 16:55 , sid wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


The market for desktop users of Linux is less than 2% [1] of the overall
desktop based on web stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_...o p_computers

Your stats as provided by this company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Applications

"While the statistics released by the company routinely place Operating
Systems sold by Microsoft (Windows) and Apple (Mac OS X) with a high market
share in the desktop computer category (through 2013), Vincent Vizzaccaro
(EVP - Marketing and Strategic Alliances, Net Applications, 2002-) has
stated that Microsoft and Apple are among the company's clients.[2] The
company has also admitted that their statistics are skewed.[3] These
admissions and the fact the company doesn't make their data sources or
processing methods public, has led many to criticize the company (e.g.[4]);
questioning their impartiality and the reliability of their statistics."

You're never going to get true stats, particularly if all you monitor are
www.microsoft.com or www.apple.com etc


I'm not implying anything here, just pointing it out, that's all.

Fair enough - let's get some more sources:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operat...10&qpcustomd=0

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/02/dis...ng-far-behind/

In the end, we all know where "desktop" Linux lies on the histogram, in
the deep shadow of the left edge. It's for geeks, rebels and dreamers.
Sucks maybe, but them's the facts.

Linux really belongs to the realms of embedded, server, transaction,
database, super-computing and similar missions. It's just not a good
thing to foist on people for their desktops. (An exception is "thin
client" use in companies for basic desktop services).


--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

On 2014.04.09, 16:19 , sid wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.04.08, 16:54 , sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

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.

You're being pedantic. The Finder is part of the middle-are that is an
integral part of OS X and its UI. No different than a folder view in
Unity.

No, just being accurate. Finder is run as part of the UI, it's not part of
the OS. You are correct in saying "No different than a folder view in
Unity." though in my case Dolphin in KDE

It is part of the OS as Apple delivers it. You can decide where the OS
begins and ends as you like, but the "Mac" OS as delivered and as it
installs includes the desktop and how it is integrated to various and
many features in indirect and non-obvious ways. It's part and parcel of
the integrated whole - and include features as discussed.

OS X doesn't have "standard alternates", by the way, to Aqua as Linux
has Gnome, KDE and the rest. Aqua is all there is. (One could
obviously overlay something). But it is an ingrained part of OS X as
delivered - and it is much richer, complex and capable than what is in
KDE, Gnome, Unity, etc.

This is why Finder is in the System folders and out of sight and mind of
the user.

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.

It's a given that any function on a computer has to execute code to do
something.

Quite.

Finder is "middleware" that is part and parcel of OS X as a
distribution. The user doesn't add it (as he would The Gimp or dcraw)
it is there. Indeed it's not possible to casually remove it from the
dock (it can be done but so indirectly as to be unknown by 99% of OS X
users).

Anyone who wants to can find out how with a cursory google search.

Of course - there's just no reason to bother to remove it, and the
features it provides (as discussed and more) are beneficial to users.

Apparently it can be done and with no detriment to the OS. There are third
party replacements out there so one does not need the finder supplied by
Apple. It's crap anyway according to nospam.

That's not the point (that it can be disabled, nor that it is (in
nospam's opinion) crap)). The point is it is there, and as discussed it
is expressly done to get very quick views of documents

Easier to experience than to describe. I've experienced Linux a lot
over the years and it is nowhere close to OS X in terms of interface.

OTOH, installed and running OS X takes more memory than Linux and
whatever desktop is your fancy - and on a memory rich system like mine
(24 GB) OS X is not ashamed to take several GB. That's okay. Memory is
cheap.


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.

No - but it is delivered with photographic workflow in mind - including
in Finder.

So what is delivered with a new Mac that is particularly with a photographic
workflow in mind, that isn't delivered with other OS'

Already described in part by nosapm. Others would include "Coverflow"
(another thing in Finder for very rapidly looking at photos and docs).

Again - it's much easier to experience than to describe.

--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:56:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

That I didn't know wavelets were already present in Photoshop is a
consequence of their habit of giving names to features and functions
which give no real guide as to what those features or functions might
actually be doing. You will no doubt argue that this is OK as the
average photoshop user will not be able to understand the mechanical
workings of the software even if it is explained to them. They would
rather know that such and such an effect can be achieved with the
gizmo function and have no interest in knowing how it is done.

Exactly. That has been part of the point I have been attempting to
make. Just because Adobe (and some others) have chosen not to give some
features their geekiy and esoteric labels, doesn't mean they are not
employed in their products.

Nor shouldyou take it for granted that they are present if there is no
evidence of their presence.

Well that's not me. I've experimented in the past with multiple passes
of unsharp mask sharpening at ever reducing margins and have been very
pleased with the result. Doing this is somewhat laborious and I'm more
than slightly pleased to know that PS has got it built in. I wonder
what else I would like to know?

You might like to know when and how to use *Smart Sharpen* properly.
(including the use of Smart Object layers which makes all the filter
adjustments non-destructive with the ability to revisit.) When Smart
Sharpen was first introduced it was an improvement over USM and the
Smart Sharpen algorithm for PS CS6/CC is a complete revamp from that
found in CS5.

Sure, 'smart sharpen' appears to be a very capable tool but when you
don't know that it already incorporates wavelet sharpening there is no
apparent reason why you should not seek further the benefits from
wavelet sharpening.

You might like to know when and how to use sharpening in ACR/Camera RAW
filter(CRF) & LR5 including how to use masking in ACR/CRF & LR5.

You might like to know when and how to use the *Shake Reduction* filter
(also better used on a Smart Object adjustment layer).

You might remember I have already posted a before and after example of
the benefits of this on an image of Mosquito.

...and there are time High Pass Filter sharpening can be useful.

I'm a fan of High Pass sharpening. High Pass is one of the choices
offered in Nikon NX2.

In any case, thank you very much.


--
Regards,

Savageduck
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens