GIMP and UFraw

I have downloaded the above free editer and raw converter as an alternative to expensive Adobe products. I have also downloaded the free Rawtherapee raw converter.
Both the raw converters seem to work well on my Sony ARW files except the interfaces are not quite so familiar and therefore not so easy to use as Adobe elements and CS that I now have. CS, of course, will not work with the Adobe raw converter that will convert my ARW files and the PSE6 raw converter has fewer user options than the free converters eg curves. Adobe obsolescence policy really iritates me.
Does anyone have any opinions about the quality of these products in relation to image manipulation and the quality of the conversions and are there any pitfalls in using them.
Cheers

Jeff

jeff worsnop wrote:
I have downloaded the above free editer and raw converter as an
alternative to expensive Adobe products. I have also downloaded the
free Rawtherapee raw converter.
Both the raw converters seem to work well on my Sony ARW files except
the interfaces are not quite so familiar and therefore not so easy to
use as Adobe elements and CS that I now have. CS, of course, will not
work with the Adobe raw converter that will convert my ARW files and
the PSE6 raw converter has fewer user options than the free converters
eg curves. Adobe obsolescence policy really iritates me.
Does anyone have any opinions about the quality of these products in
relation to image manipulation and the quality of the conversions and
are there any pitfalls in using them.
Cheers

Jeff

Jeff,
I have been using GIMP and UFRaw for a number of years. The interface
is different from Adobe products. This is to be expected for various
reasons. A thorough understanding of the concepts go a long way in
mitigating those differences. I have just started using RawTherapee for
some of my photo adjustments. I just downloaded the latest "bleeding
edge" version and like it a lot for some things. As with any program,
if you go overboard, you can make a good photo bad.

One thing to keep in mind is that these programs are free or open
source. They do not cost you anything to try. If you like them consider
supporting the development in some way. GIMP is open source and seems
to have a strong development team with frequent releases. At some point
in time, the developer of RawTherapee will be discovered and acquired by
a large company. That is what happened with Pixmatic RawShooter which
was an excellent free application to process raw photos.

My suggestion is to give the programs a fair trial. The only loss is
your time and you are learning all the time. Doesn't it really boil
down to learning when you think about it.

By the way, Many conversion programs use Dave Coffin's DCRAW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw in the underlaying conversion
program, so conversion will essentially the same. Other algorithms will
likely be different.

Clair

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:15:13 +0000, jeff worsnop wrote:

I have downloaded the above free editer and raw converter as an
alternative to expensive Adobe products. I have also downloaded the free
Rawtherapee raw converter.
Both the raw converters seem to work well on my Sony ARW files except
the interfaces are not quite so familiar and therefore not so easy to
use as Adobe elements and CS that I now have. CS, of course, will not
work with the Adobe raw converter that will convert my ARW files and the
PSE6 raw converter has fewer user options than the free converters eg
curves. Adobe obsolescence policy really iritates me. Does anyone have
any opinions about the quality of these products in relation to image
manipulation and the quality of the conversions and are there any
pitfalls in using them. Cheers

Jeff

I use them to convert and edit RAW files from my Kodak P850. Been using
them for a couple of years and quite satisfied. Having never owned or used
PS I find both of them to be quite intuitive and easy to use. There are
online tutorials for GIMP and a very nice book as well.

jeff worsnop wrote:
I have downloaded the above free editer and raw converter as an
alternative to expensive Adobe products. I have also downloaded the
free Rawtherapee raw converter.
Both the raw converters seem to work well on my Sony ARW files except
the interfaces are not quite so familiar and therefore not so easy to
use as Adobe elements and CS that I now have. CS, of course, will not
work with the Adobe raw converter that will convert my ARW files and
the PSE6 raw converter has fewer user options than the free converters
eg curves. Adobe obsolescence policy really iritates me.
Does anyone have any opinions about the quality of these products in
relation to image manipulation and the quality of the conversions and
are there any pitfalls in using them.
Cheers

Jeff




Since RAW shooting became "fashionable" with photographers, there have
been a number of RAW developers all claiming to de-mosaic RAW files
"better" than others.

Adobe ACR is not brilliant piece of engineering you absolutely must
have. It is just another RAW converter that doesn't do as good a job as
it could on some makes of RAW files.

I use s5 Fuji cameras which are basically Nikon D200's with a different
sensor. Although 90% of the time I'm satisfied with it's JPEG output,
when I process it's RAW files is how I discovered the good, bad and ugly
image developers.

I'd say in all sincerity, use the DCraw derived developers. They are
free but this doesn't mean they are crap. I wouldn't use Gimp if it was
the last program on earth but I certainly like the RAW converter that
works stand alone using some of GIMP's files.

My suggestion is to give the programs a fair trial. The only loss is
your time and you are learning all the time. Doesn't it really boil
down to learning when you think about it.

By the way, Many conversion programs use Dave Coffin's DCRAW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw in the underlaying conversion
program, so conversion will essentially the same. Other algorithms will
likely be different.

Clair[/quote]

Thanks for the link.
Agreed that I should spend time getting to know the programmes which is fine (retired and time rich) but I am not savvy enough to work out the advantages/disadvantages myself. And my screen is not very discerning either and making test prints can get quite costly.
Cheers
Jeff

Adobe ACR is not brilliant piece of engineering you absolutely must
have. It is just another RAW converter that doesn't do as good a job as
it could on some makes of RAW files.

I use s5 Fuji cameras which are basically Nikon D200's with a different
sensor. Although 90% of the time I'm satisfied with it's JPEG output,
when I process it's RAW files is how I discovered the good, bad and ugly
image developers.

I'd say in all sincerity, use the DCraw derived developers. They are
free but this doesn't mean they are crap. I wouldn't use Gimp if it was
the last program on earth but I certainly like the RAW converter that
works stand alone using some of GIMP's files.[/quote]

Thanks for replying.
Would be interested to know if Sony ARW files are among those for which ACR doesn't do as good a job it could?
Cheers
Jeff

jeff worsnop wrote:
My suggestion is to give the programs a fair trial. The only loss is
your time and you are learning all the time. Doesn't it really boil
down to learning when you think about it.

By the way, Many conversion programs use Dave Coffin's DCRAW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw in the underlaying conversion
program, so conversion will essentially the same. Other algorithms
will
likely be different.

Clair

Thanks for the link.
Agreed that I should spend time getting to know the programmes which is
fine (retired and time rich) but I am not savvy enough to work out the
advantages/disadvantages myself. And my screen is not very discerning
either and making test prints can get quite costly.
Cheers
Jeff

Jeff,
I also am retired but have found that I am not time rich. Photography
has been a hobby for 45+ years. Making money from photography is not
for the faint of heart so it has been a hobby and I found other ways to
make an income.

The first item is to change your thinking. Think "I am savvy enough to
figure this out!" The internet is a wonderful research/learning tool.
use it to your advantage. Your comment "my screen is not very
discerning either and making test prints can get quite costly" may not
be as big of a problem as you may think. Anyway it exists no matter how
expensive the software you acquire. Depending on your computer system
it may be as simple as a little configuration or as costly as a new
monitor and display adapter. I would start by learning how to configure
your existing equipment. Do an internet search for "monitor
calibration". A quick basic check can be found at
http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/photo/calibration/ Read the accompanying
text and your display manual to make adjustments.

Another website to help get started is
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/m...alibration.htm . It has
lots of links and at least one image you can print to check what you see
on your screen is what you print. From there it usually gets tricky,
but learning is half the fun.

Another page with lots of links is:
http://www.freecolormanagement.com/color/links.html

Other links:
http://epaperpress.com/psphoto/index.html
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml
http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index....nceImages.html hint
http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/

Thats all for now. I'm looking for the test image that I use, but
haven't found a link on the web.

Clair

jeff worsnop wrote:
I have downloaded the above free editer and raw converter as an
alternative to expensive Adobe products. I have also downloaded the
free Rawtherapee raw converter.
Both the raw converters seem to work well on my Sony ARW files except
the interfaces are not quite so familiar and therefore not so easy to
use as Adobe elements and CS that I now have. CS, of course, will not
work with the Adobe raw converter that will convert my ARW files and
the PSE6 raw converter has fewer user options than the free converters
eg curves. Adobe obsolescence policy really iritates me.
Does anyone have any opinions about the quality of these products in
relation to image manipulation and the quality of the conversions and
are there any pitfalls in using them.
Cheers

Jeff




I don't use raw, so cannot comment on that. As far as Gimp is concerned,
I tried to persevere with it based on recommendations, but I just don't
like it. I was using PhotoPlus but you can pick up a PSP 9 cd from
Amazon which I did for around $12. This program is far more intuitive
and easy to use than Gimp, there may be things you can do in one that
can't be done in the other but I don't know what they are. I couldn't
justify the expense of PS, I could be interested in Elements based
mainly on the fact that any article on photo editing uses the PS
interface and there are heaps of books on both. PSP does have some books
and online tutorials and generally those photo articles I mentioned can
be adapted for PSP. In the end, like the cameras we use, much of it is
personal taste and familiarity. Now if they just sold skill in bottles
(or tablets)!!
Dave Cohen
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Originally Posted by Clair Johnston;
Jeff,
I also am retired but have found that I am not time rich. Photography
has been a hobby for 45+ years. Making money from photography is not
for the faint of heart so it has been a hobby and I found other ways to
make an income.

The first item is to change your thinking. Think "I am savvy enough to
figure this out!" The internet is a wonderful research/learning tool.
use it to your advantage. Your comment "my screen is not very
discerning either and making test prints can get quite costly" may not
be as big of a problem as you may think. Anyway it exists no matter how
expensive the software you acquire. Depending on your computer system
it may be as simple as a little configuration or as costly as a new
monitor and display adapter. I would start by learning how to configure
your existing equipment. Do an internet search for "monitor
calibration". A quick basic check can be found at
[url

http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/photo/calibration/[/url] Read the accompanying
text and your display manual to make adjustments.

Another website to help get started is
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/m...alibration.htm . It has
lots of links and at least one image you can print to check what you see
on your screen is what you print. From there it usually gets tricky,
but learning is half the fun.

Another page with lots of links is:
http://www.freecolormanagement.com/color/links.html

Other links:
http://epaperpress.com/psphoto/index.html
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml
http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index....nceImages.html hint
http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/

Thats all for now. I'm looking for the test image that I use, but
haven't found a link on the web.

Clair

Thanks Clair
I have ordered SpyderPro3 for Xmas and have recently calibrated by eyeball. I shall follow up your links later. I also have in mind to bring my Dell CRT monitor out of retirement to use, after calibration, under a constant dim light in my former darkroom (well, cupboard really). Although I print using appropriate profiles with my Canon Pro9000 I find the results can vary quite a lot depending on for example whether I use perceptual or relative colourmetric, but that is manageable. However I do find difficulty replicating what I see on screen on paper - allowing for the difference between reflective and illuminated mediums - so, for example a recent shot shows distinct backlight clouds on screen but when printed the sky is very nearly monotone (correct tone for the sky after layers adjustment) even though the land looks OK
Anyhow I am now onto colour management which for photography I find complex but fascinating. I also dabble with paints but no one in mine or my wife's group seem to analyse much beyond warm/cool or opaque/transparent and they sell quite a few paintings!!!
And finally I should say that probably much of my botheration is due to taking up digital photography because, among other things, I was told it was cheaper than analogue photography. But it is not. Consumables are comparatively expensive but the hardware and software are hugely more expensive compared to my simple cameras and enlarger, and it irritates me to find it is more difficult to get decent results having invested in the hardware and software! I guess others will disagree.
Right, I'm starting with those links so the coffee pot is on.
Cheers
Jeff