Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 21:14:36 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

Don't go by what they (you) say. Go by what they do.

--- snip ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens 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.

Clark does describe Unsharp Mask using PhotoShop to be
specifically much the same as USM is in other editors.

He also points out the "Smart Sharpen" is the kind of
problem that I described, where the user cannot tell
what it might do. Some settings may use a different mix
of two or more types of sharpening. It's the kind of
thing you just adjust until it looks "wonderful", and
have no idea if that setting would also be useful on the
next image or not.

Roger is very good at collecting data and graphing it
for useful presentations. He has serious problems
interpeting the data at times, and while he becomes
extremely defensive when challenged he does learn from
discussions and also edits his web page articles to
indicate what he has learned. You might notice that the
page you cite was recently updated... primarily due to
a discussion that I and several others participated in
where many of Roger's original conclusios were shown to
be not quite as clear or accurate as they could be. I
of course don't think he moved far enough, and I'm sure
he thinks the same about me. We both moved some, and it
was all in all a very intensive and useful discussion.

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

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 21:14:36 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

Don't go by what they (you) say. Go by what they do.

Who would "they" be? And why not go by what you need...
If "they" don't have the exact same needs, you are going
to go with the flow... right over the dam.

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

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:21:38 +0000, Jeffery Small wrote:

I thought I would post this to the digital group to see if there were
any Minolta or Sony users who used the UFRaw converter software with
their raw image files. I have been having serious problems and wanted
to see if this was observed by others. Here is my story.

Ubuntu 13.10 system running on an Asus U56E system UFRaw ver. 0.19.2
Dcraw ver. 9.19.1 GIMP ver. 2.8.6 Darktable ver. 1.2.3 Shotwell ver.
0.15.0

When attempting to load Minolta (mrw) and Sony (arw) raw image files
into GIMP, the UFRaw plug-in is not properly processing them. The
following webpage has images which demonstrate the problem:

http://smallthoughts.com/photos/misc/GIMP/index.html

The raw files are being imported with distorted color, exposure and
contrast. However, as the additional images show, other programs such
as Darktable and Shotwell and the Minolta/Sony editing programs (on
Windows) are importing and displaying these raw files properly.

Has anyone else been experiencing similar problems with their raw files
of any type?

Regards,

Have you tried Raw Studio or Raw Therapee ?



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

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.

photoshop has deconvolution built-in, but if that isn't to your liking,
there are plug-ins available that can do exactly what you want.

Clark does describe Unsharp Mask using PhotoShop to be
specifically much the same as USM is in other editors.

no surprise there.

in fact, usm and many other image processing functions are built into
os x itself on both mac and ios. it's basically one line of code.

He also points out the "Smart Sharpen" is the kind of
problem that I described, where the user cannot tell
what it might do. Some settings may use a different mix
of two or more types of sharpening. It's the kind of
thing you just adjust until it looks "wonderful", and
have no idea if that setting would also be useful on the
next image or not.

nonsense. if you use it you'll know what it does or doesn't do and
whether it's appropriate for the 'next image' or not. you can also
choose to not use it at all.

In article 201404060047514157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

I made my buying choices after serious and deliberate consideration
including taking a hard look at GIMP.
You made yours based on what would fit your Linux model, without even
running any of the Win or OSX software. You seem to be quite ignorant
of the current capabilities and features of PS CS6/CC.

not only is he ignorant of what photoshop can and cannot do (any
version, not just cs6) as well as what other apps are available on both
platforms, but he's also very ignorant about mac and windows
themselves.

i can't help but notice that just about everyone who claims the gimp is
great has never used anything else. it's all they know.

on the other hand, those who actually have used both the gimp and other
apps can readily see just how limited and clunky the gimp really is.

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).



--
Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
people are not trained to perform.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

On 2014.04.05, 23:06 , Bob wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.04.05, 19:40 , 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?

I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to
use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v.
Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy.

And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more
quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...

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).

And so does that make those of us that don't have
the problems with Gimp that you do dumber?

You're being trite and silly. If you're happy with the Gimp then be happy.

You'll notice in my reply to the OP that I pointed out what I believed
to be the issue. But, no, you latch on to criticism of the Gimp rather
than help the OP. Really? If you're such a Gimp pro why didn't you
help him rather than criticize my reply?

The real issue is that Photoshop for all its evil corporate ownership
and high price is a far better photography tool than the Gimp.

If the Gimp were even 90% of what Photoshop CSx was, then droves of
starving photographers and graphics artists and startup companies would
leap to it.

But they don't. 'Cause it isn't. And never will be.

--
... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
for the services these companies offer. What they really
want is to have us "on the leash."
-David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

On 2014.04.06, 11:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:


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.

I replied to the OP and I pointed out that the UFRaw settings that were
displayed looked a bit off to me, and one in particular (WB) was
suspicious. I told the OP to make some adjustments to get (closer) to a
baseline position. Since I no longer have the Gimp (or Linux)
installed, I didn't take it further to test the settings that he had.

He did not reply to that - so I wonder:

1) Were we trolled? (Again).

2) Who's the troll? (And I have my suspicions).

--
... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
for the services these companies offer. What they really
want is to have us "on the leash."
-David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

Tony Cooper wrote:
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.

Neither GIMP nor Linux was a problem, and the problem he
had would be exactly the same under Windows or OSX.

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.

We redirected practical discussion to a newsgroup where
it would not be diverted.

The OP is well on his way to learning various ways to
use the software he asked about to get the results he
needs. It did indeed turn out to be precisely what I
suggested in regard to setting a default configuration
for UFRAW. The OP has made two RAW files available and
a couple of us are showing him techniques that work.

You'd think some people have just discovered that Photoshop is a good
program and feel compelled to tell the world about it.

'nuf said.

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