Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

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.

And the last tme you used PS was?

he hasn't.

According to nospam.

All of which is a Non Sequitur to avoid depth of discussion.

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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

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.

And the last tme you used PS was?

That is irrelevant.

it's very relevant.

it's clear you haven't used photoshop and don't know what it can and
cannot do.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

according to *you*.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

according to *you*.

I've never owned a copy myself. I have never had it on
a computer at home. I have never "used" it in the sense
that it was my normal editor.

Only you have ever said that I've never used it at all, in
any way.

And that is totally irrelevant anyway!

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

according to *you*.

I've never owned a copy myself. I have never had it on
a computer at home. I have never "used" it in the sense
that it was my normal editor.

thanks for confirming it.

Only you have ever said that I've never used it at all, in
any way.

not just me. you said it yourself again, just now.

And that is totally irrelevant anyway!

quite the opposite. it's very relevant.

if you haven't used photoshop then you don't know what it can and
cannot do.

you might think you do, maybe from what you've read or heard from
others, but each time you say something about it (or about mac or
windows for that matter), it's clear you don't know.

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

none of that is relevant.

photoshop can do whatever a user wants and so can other apps.

the difference is the user experience in doing whatever it is.
photoshop will do it with less hassle and in less time (and i've
measured this by running both, something you have not done).

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

according to *you*.

I've never owned a copy myself. I have never had it on
a computer at home. I have never "used" it in the sense
that it was my normal editor.

thanks for confirming it.

Only you have ever said that I've never used it at all, in
any way.

not just me. you said it yourself again, just now.

You're ability to analyze text is as poor as your
understanding of photography.

And that is totally irrelevant anyway!

quite the opposite. it's very relevant.

To you, alone.

if you haven't used photoshop then you don't know what it can and
cannot do.

I've never laced my food with cyanide. Yet I do know
what that can do... You should try it?

But the fact is that yes I've used Photoshop, and using
it is not how I know what it can do.

you might think you do, maybe from what you've read or heard from
others, but each time you say something about it (or about mac or
windows for that matter), it's clear you don't know.

That seems to be your stock response to anyone for
everything if they are not a Mac or Windows user.
Sometimes there is a point to that, but it is poor logic
on it's face.

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

none of that is relevant.

photoshop can do whatever a user wants and so can other apps.

Not true. The user can do whatever it allows. There is
very little that it doesn't allow, but for those who
have the needs and do understand the distinctions, what
it doesn't allow is very significant.

Can you resample an image to 4 times its original size
using a Mitchell filter, rather than whatever it is that
"Smoother" means in "Bicubic Smoother"? Does it make any
difference to you?

For that matter, when an image is resampled in PhotoShop
is it first converted to unity gamma (i.e., 0.4545 as
opposed to 2.2), or not?

the difference is the user experience in doing whatever it is.
photoshop will do it with less hassle and in less time (and i've
measured this by running both, something you have not done).

Again you claim to know what others can or have done...
Hilarious.

Photoshop can't do things I want done. That is true of
GIMP also. Which is why I also use other editing tools.
I'm more concerned about total compatibility than how
well or even how fast any one program is for anyone
else.

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

nospam wrote:
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.

Nobody said he used GIMP. But Eric said he used
Photoshop, which was not even close to true.

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

Eric Stevens wrote:
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'.

But in the entire series you mentioned, he did *not* do
what you said he did. And I don't know of any articles
where Roger has done what you said, with photoshop.

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

On 2014-04-08 00:12:15 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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!

Are you talking about Photoshop CC?
There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has
completely different algorithms.

keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).

According to nospam.

according to *you*.

I've never owned a copy myself. I have never had it on
a computer at home. I have never "used" it in the sense
that it was my normal editor.

Only you have ever said that I've never used it at all, in
any way.

And that is totally irrelevant anyway!

Unless you are not aware of, and thus blind to the current capabilities
of Photoshop CS6/CC & ACR.

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

Why is it you believe PS users don't know the difference between *High
Pass Sharpening* & *USM*? Some of us simpletons have a fair idea of the
concept. Adobe has its own labels and names for some complex functions
to degeekify a few things for the non-geek post processing
photographer, surprisingly there are more of those than the geek
variety.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_648.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_640.jpg

The sharpening options in PS are quite varied. You also seem to not
understand just what *Smart Sharpening* actually is. What it isn't, is
some simple one click, sharpen filter.
*Smart Sharpening requires an understanding of the process and must be
tweaked and adjusted for optimal effect, for total image, shadows, and
highlights. It is a big improvement over USM and the simple one click
Sharpen Filter.

Then in ACR or the *Camera RAW Filter* you have the ability apply
sharpening selectively with masking.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_646.jpg

Add to that the addition of the *Shake Reduction Sharpening* filter
found in PS CS6/CC.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_641.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

If you don't know the difference between what happens when
invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
relevant!

none of that is relevant.

photoshop can do whatever a user wants and so can other apps.

Not true. The user can do whatever it allows. There is
very little that it doesn't allow, but for those who
have the needs and do understand the distinctions, what
it doesn't allow is very significant.

there is *nothing* that photoshop doesn't allow. photoshop supports
numerous types of plug-ins so whatever it is you want to do can be
added if it's not already there.

the gimp also supports plug-ins, but since photoshop is far more
popular than the gimp, developers will target it first. that makes
photoshop more likely to have fewer limitations.

it's possible that *some* photoshop plug-ins can work in the gimp but
only a small subset and not always with full compatibility.

and you keep ignoring the user experience. although many things can be
done in both, it's easier and faster to do them in photoshop in most
cases (there are always exceptions, usually obscure ones that don't
matter much). that's why pros almost always choose to use photoshop.
they don't have time to screw around.