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.

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'.

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Jeffery Small) wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson 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.

If you have 1000 images to process it makes great sense!
If you only do 20 images, it really is better. If you
do 1 or 10 it doesn't make a lot of difference.

Also it's a matter of whether you adjust your selection
of keepers to match the processing defaults, or whether
you adjust the configuration to match your photographs.
To do the former it is much easier to simply set the
camera to shoot JPEG... and if you shoot RAW it is a
waste of time to bother with the camera's JPEG
configuration.

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.

Sounds good on the surface, but really isn't important
at all. I shoot RAW, and could care less what the
camera configuration is simply because I have no need to
take the time to reconfigure the camera's JPEG
configuration, using guesses that cannot ever by precise
enough and will eventually be discarded anyway.

But there is also the problem of knowing exactly what
the camera settings are. Only the manufacturer really
knows, as nobody else can look at their software. (No
it is not encryption as some claim.) The camera has
many adjustments, and keeps track of them with nice
incremental numbers, say from -10 to +10 for hue,
sharpness, etc etc. But exactly what does the software
do when it is set to sharpness of 5 and hue of -4?

But who cares anyway, because the setting on the camera
is a guess that must be preset, and has very course
granularity. Post processing allows configuration by
inspection, and with much finer granularity.

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.

Exactly. If nothing changed from one image to the next,
press the "save" button and go to the next. If you save
only the ID file in UFRAW that takes a fraction of a
second. A person can whip through hundreds of images
fairly fast. Lots of times out of say 400 shots there
will be only about 3 or 4 different configurations
needed for 380 of the shots, and then maybe 20 or so
that are totally individual. That means changing
configuration only 24 times rather than having to do it
400 times. Huge efficiency advantage.

Also, saving only the ID file while working
interactively means that you can go from one image to
the next in an instant. If each image is interpolated
and saved as you go it takes a huge amount of your time,
while you sit and wait for it to finish. With only an
ID file saved, the time intensive interpolation is done
as a batch process while you do other things. Again, a
huge efficiency advantage.

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.

It takes time to catch the significance of many of it's
features. One of the primary advantages of the way much
of the Linux software is designed is because it is well
thought out for an advanced user, but that makes the
learning curve steeper too. Much of the "advantage"
claimed for Windows and Mac users is because software
can be designed to make it easier for a new user. That
is wonderful while you are a new user, without critical
needs...

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

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?

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
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.

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?

I don't do astrophotography,

Neither do I.

as an example, but see
where many of those who do use Linux and associated
tools. And others don't.

That's nice.

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,

Correct. It is lacking when compared with PS CS6.CC an LR5.

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.

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?

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.

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. 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.
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. 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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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)

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)