Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

On 2014.04.06, 11:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:

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

I forgot to add:

In reality many Photoshop users (myself included) despise Adobe and the
high price of using it and we would love for the Gimp to displace it.

However, the 'cost' of using the Gimp is far heavier than the cost of
using Photoshop so we stick to Photoshop.

And yes, we tell anyone using the Gimp that they are not using the tool
of choice of most serious photographers. The tool with the most
features, abilities, ease of use and the most support of various kinds
including 3rd party plugins.

The OP (assuming he's not a troll) came here for help and most here use
Photoshop - so the replies given reflect the sad reality of Photoshop
dominance. Akin to the even sadder dominance by Microsoft in OS and
office apps.

Sucks. But that's the way it is.

--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

Alan Browne wrote:
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).

I thought *you* were trolling! Your suggestion/comments
were nonsense.

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

Well, lets just look at what you said:

'The default (or however you have them) UFRaw
settings might not be "nominal" - so go over them
one by one and attempt to find if any are really
way off. Set the channel multipliers to 1 (to
begin), temperature to 5000K (more or less) and so
on. It may just be your defaults are too wacky."

Set the channel multipliers to 1??? And also set the
color temperature to about 5000K... How about wacky!

His posted URL clearly showed the color temperature was
set to 5054K, which seems close enough. But you don't
seem to realize the color temperature is controlled by
setting the channel multipliers. Setting them all to 1
produces a very green image with a color temperature of
4248K. (Essentially the same as a UniWB profile.)

"(I notice for example that the WB setting is "0"
in your examples."

There is no other possible setting. That button doesn't allow
a numerical entry, because it brings up the menu for preset
White Balance configuration (Camera, Manual, Auto, Daylight, etc).

"Not sure if that's a correct or useful WB value
in The Gimp."

It has nothing at all to do with GIMP.

"Likewise your channel multiplier values @ 4 and 2
in the 2nd/3rd examples may be quite a way off -
or not)."

The 2nd image is of blue sky, and the channel multipliers
set a color temperature shown as 16,811K. That may or may
not be way off, depending on what one wants the sky to look
like. The 3rd image has a color temperature of 6148K, as is
also clearly shown. Both seem reasonable enough...

"All that said, when you're serious about
photography and raw you should seriously get away
from Linux and The Gimp."

Or better would be to understand image editing.

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

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

the goal is to get the task done in the most efficient way possible.

that might mean trying something new or it might not. the gimp is not
the only solution out there. far from it. have an open mind, for a
change.

if the gimp can do it, that's great, but if something else can do a
better job, more easily and/or with less hassle, that's even better.

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

they did that 20 years ago.

today, everyone knows photoshop is excellent and the standard to which
everything else is compared.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

nonsense.

that is absolutely, without question, completely and utterly false.

the more you comment on photoshop, mac and windows, the more clear it
is you know absolutely nothing about any of them.

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.

and uninterested in other options that might be easier and/or better.

that's too bad for him (and others in a similar situation).

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

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

I forgot to add:

In reality many Photoshop users (myself included) despise Adobe and the
high price of using it and we would love for the Gimp to displace it.

However, the 'cost' of using the Gimp is far heavier than the cost of
using Photoshop so we stick to Photoshop.

very true, and with photoshop elements being around $50, it's actually
cheaper than dealing with the gimp when you consider the time and
effort spent. elements is faster, easier to use and does substantially
more than the gimp (including older versions which can be had for even
less money).

And yes, we tell anyone using the Gimp that they are not using the tool
of choice of most serious photographers. The tool with the most
features, abilities, ease of use and the most support of various kinds
including 3rd party plugins.

The OP (assuming he's not a troll) came here for help and most here use
Photoshop - so the replies given reflect the sad reality of Photoshop
dominance. Akin to the even sadder dominance by Microsoft in OS and
office apps.

Sucks. But that's the way it is.

yep.

there's a reason why photoshop is the dominant tool, because it has
earned it.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

nonsense.

that is absolutely, without question, completely and utterly false.

the more you comment on photoshop, mac and windows, the more clear it
is you know absolutely nothing about any of them.

Of course since you haven't got a clue what his problem was, your
comments are nonsense. Nothing new at all there either...

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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

nonsense.

that is absolutely, without question, completely and utterly false.

the more you comment on photoshop, mac and windows, the more clear it
is you know absolutely nothing about any of them.

Of course since you haven't got a clue what his problem was, your
comments are nonsense. Nothing new at all there either...

ad hominem and also wrong.

standard response from you though.

On 2014.04.06, 12:51 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:37:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.04.06, 11:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:

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

I forgot to add:

In reality many Photoshop users (myself included) despise Adobe and the
high price of using it and we would love for the Gimp to displace it.

However, the 'cost' of using the Gimp is far heavier than the cost of
using Photoshop so we stick to Photoshop.

And yes, we tell anyone using the Gimp that they are not using the tool
of choice of most serious photographers. The tool with the most
features, abilities, ease of use and the most support of various kinds
including 3rd party plugins.

The OP (assuming he's not a troll) came here for help and most here use
Photoshop - so the replies given reflect the sad reality of Photoshop
dominance. Akin to the even sadder dominance by Microsoft in OS and
office apps.

Sucks. But that's the way it is.

What I get tired of is that if the word "Gimp" appears in a post, it's
like Pavlov's bell goes off. What will follow is "gimp doesn't have
layers", "nondestructive editing", "old school" and the like. (no
caps intentional)

This is foremost a newsgroup forum, so all bets are off wrt what will
happen. Next it's a photography forum where the majority of us are
Photoshop slaves. Nonetheless far better off as kept by Adobe than
wandering the wilds, cold and alone with Gimp.

Who's under the impression that all of this is not already known by
anyone who's using either program? It's not news.

When someone comes here with something as lame as the Gimp's UFRaw
settings, then alternates are always up for suggestion.

As for the OP being a troll, why would anyone come back to the group
if the original question has been answered, and then the thread
deteriorates into a Gimp vs Photoshop battle of the witless?

I'll let your considerable abilities at analysis guide you.

--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

In article 2014040520482683697-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

[ ... ]. Regardless of the claims of GIMP evangelists/advocates it is
not the equal of Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom. [ ... ]

Of course Gimp isn't equal to Photoshop etc. There are lots
of things Photoshop does that Gimp doesn't do. There are
however, things Gimp does that Photoshop doesn't. The vast bulk
of things a person needs to do though can be done with either.

[ Oh, and BTW, many, if not most Gimp users have used Photoshop.
So you may want to make up another 'fact' to explain why there
are many, many happy and success Gimp users. ]

Bob

On 2014-04-06 20:23:20 +0000, Bob said:

In article 2014040520482683697-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

[ ... ]. Regardless of the claims of GIMP evangelists/advocates it is
not the equal of Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or lightroom. [ ... ]

Of course Gimp isn't equal to Photoshop etc. There are lots
of things Photoshop does that Gimp doesn't do.

Good! At least we can agree on that.

There are however, things Gimp does that Photoshop doesn't.

Yup! It irritates the **** out of me, Photoshop doesn't do that.
....unless you were thinking of something specific, nothing else comes
readily to mind.

The vast bulk of things a person needs to do though can be done with either.

....but not all.

[ Oh, and BTW, many, if not most Gimp users have used Photoshop.

With the exception of Floyd, who wouldn't deign to lower himself to use
Win or OSX.

So you may want to make up another 'fact' to explain why there
are many, many happy and success Gimp users. ]

Most of that happy group are Linux users, and rabid Win & OSX naysayers
with little choice in digital image editing software other than GIMP.
The Win & OSX GIMP users who might have at one time or another been
exposed to another piece of digital editing software are the usually
the frugal bunch who are not prepared to open their wallets to other
than open source freeware. The last version of PS they might have used
was PS7 because they didn't want to get on the CS upgrade $$$
treadmill. They then rationalized their decision by declaring that GIMP
was the solution to their digital editing woes.

As to being happy GIMP users, they sure are a reactionary defensive bunch.
....but who am I to know what works for you.

I came into this thread when you posed the question to nospam:
"So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with
good results?"

You might recall that my response was the following:
"Not efficiently, using it is a royal PIA, and other software available
for Windows and OSX is superior in all ways. 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.

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.

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."

You never responded to that, and might never have seen it, but Floyd did.

If you ever move off the Linux platform I suggest you take some of the
other software offerings out for a test drive, you might be surprised
how many have evolved over the last 20 years.


--
Regards,

Savageduck