Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article 2014040522524022304-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
[ ... ]
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.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

On 2014-04-06 22:14:27 +0000, Bob said:

In article 2014040522524022304-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
[ ... ]
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.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Not at all. Nowhere have I said there was anything lacking in the
images many produce using GIMP.
You might recall me saying the following:
"... 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."

Floyd on the other and implies some sort of intellectual deficiency and
lack of quality of work with any who don't see things his way, even
when we have produced imagery which refutes that stance.

The quote you cited above was in response to just that attitude
expressed by Floyd when we had this exchange:
"You seem to be taking a somewhat lofty and condescending perch there Floyd.

Compared to what you've posted???? Get real.

I don't claim to be a creator of great photographic art. However, what
I produce I do with deliberation and thought to reach satisfying
results. Not everything I share is perfect, sometimes there are
problems. Sometimes I find a solution to a particular problem, many
times I don't, but I have no problem sharing those images to see if
there is something I can learn from constructive criticism.
So is there a particular image of mine which you can point to with
particular distain?"

I don't recall seeing any links to your GIMP processed images in this
NG, but mine can be found without too much trouble. Floyd further
implies that because I go no further than test driving GIMP that I am
somehow deficient and have a personal problem.
I have never made that sort of arrogant denigrating remark with regard
to Floyd or any of the Linux/GIMP advocates. I have recognized Floyd as
knowledgeable on a wide range of technical issues and a decent
photographer. He, on the other hand refuses to acknowledge anybody
else's knowledge and experience.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:47:45 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

I didn't cite all Clark Vision articles but only one as a 'for
example'.

http://aftershotpro.com/plugins/inde...aveletsharpen3 is a
Corel page which describes a wavelet sharpening plugin which I believe
may also work with Photoshop.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:51:14 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

'They' are people who are seriously in the business of processing
images. Very few use Gimp. The vast majority use Photoshop.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article 2014040614294325914-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
[ ... ]
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.

Actually I think I did respond to it, not that there's
much to respond to. Use what you like. I have no
problem with that.

I came into this thread when I saw a number of people
acting like they couldn't stand that someone might try
Gimp -- also making elitist statements about how Gimp
couldn't possibly be useful. Most have backed off those
silly claims now, and we're now in the face-saving mode.

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.

I don't use Linux. Though I find it a sorry excuse for
an OS, I use Windows every day. I have a paid-for-in-full
copy of Photoshop and NIK software right here. They work.
So does Gimp, and when I use Gimp, I don't feel like I'm
missing out on anything. Lately though, I've been finding
that I can do pretty much all I want with digikam, darktable,
or my latest favorite, Rawtherapee. For Gimp/Photoshop-like
local editing, I've been playing with Krita as an alternative
for a while now.

Would you like to make up more about me?

Bob

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?

definitely not.

Hum, it looks like you keep changing your mind, or did
you mean to say 'both' rather than 'neither'?

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.

And? Isn't that true of all software? What about the
things Gimp can do that no other software does as well?
If all software were exactly the same, why would we give
them different names? BTW, with BABL and GEGL written,
expect future Gimp to be a very different story. Even
though they haven't been fully integrated into Gimp yet,
I've found them to be quite elegant, useful and powerful.

Does it bother you that many of us can use Gimp and other
non-Adobe software happily and productively, or that someone
else might try it and like it?

I don't own a $50,000 Hasselblad. Since that Hasselblad
can very likely do things my cameras can't, should I stop
using the ones I have? -- even though my cameras can do things
the Hasselblad can't? Just wondering.

Bob

On 2014-04-06 23:11:11 +0000, Bob said:

In article 2014040614294325914-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
[ ... ]
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.

Actually I think I did respond to it, not that there's
much to respond to. Use what you like. I have no
problem with that.

I came into this thread when I saw a number of people
acting like they couldn't stand that someone might try
Gimp -- also making elitist statements about how Gimp
couldn't possibly be useful. Most have backed off those
silly claims now, and we're now in the face-saving mode.

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.

I don't use Linux. Though I find it a sorry excuse for
an OS, I use Windows every day. I have a paid-for-in-full
copy of Photoshop and NIK software right here.

Interesting. Which version?

They work. So does Gimp, and when I use Gimp, I don't feel like I'm
missing out on anything. Lately though, I've been finding
that I can do pretty much all I want with digikam, darktable,
or my latest favorite, Rawtherapee. For Gimp/Photoshop-like
local editing, I've been playing with Krita as an alternative
for a while now.

Whatever makes you happy.

Would you like to make up more about me?

Where have I made any fabricated personal remarks about you, or implied
anything disparaging regarding your intellect or character?

I have no idea of the images you produce so I cannot comment on what
you do with any digital imaging software.

I had no idea of your preferred OS until you mentioned it now. I would
never have guessed that given that you are using an old (2001) open
source Usenet client, trn 4.0-test76.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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?

nobody said that it's impossible.

Good, because it sure looked like that's what you
were saying.

what is being said is that the gimp is inefficient, slow and clunky,
with the alternatives leaving it in the dust.

Meaning you'll produce, what, 10x as many photos of
equal or better quality than anyone using Gimp? 100
times? What do you mean by 'leaving it in the dust'?

Does it bother you that someone else might use Gimp
and be happy with it?

Bob

On 2014-04-06 23:35:30 +0000, Bob said:

Le Snip

What about the things Gimp can do that no other software does as well?

I am curious. Just what are the things which GIMP can do which no other
software does well?
I might need to see how that works out on my copy, which is just
waiting for a reason for me to adopt it into general use.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
nospam wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:
[ ... ]
And so does that make those of us that don't have
the problems with Gimp that you do dumber?

what other apps have you used? because it sounds like you have never
used anything other than the gimp and don't know just how awful it
really is compared to what else is available.

I've used quite a few, including Adobe products. Frankly
I can't understand why you and others make such a big
deal of it. Whether I use Photoshop or Gimp, it takes me
about the same amount of time with about the same amount
of ease for almost everything. For very special cases,
any one of them might be superior for that particular
problem, but since those are rare special cases, who cares
if the tool you have at the time might take a bit longer.

Bob