converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 2013-11-30 17:56:38 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Savageduck:
I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have
yours. (Mine is OSX).

Floyd L. Davidson:
I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

Sandman:
Haha.

/Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app

Sure is hidden.

Yep. Why rename it and why not put it where it belongs!

Yes, because it should be called "Floyds Shell Command Line Application"
and be put square in the center of the desktop.

*rolleye*

Snort! ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-30 17:57:54 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.11.30, 12:04 , sid wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:56:47 +0000, sid wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

but most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.

That is just ridiculous, what on earth does his OS have to do with
improving his photography? At no point ever has the operating system on my
pc affected my ability to chosse what to shoot or how to compose that shot
or how to expose it. Is that what I'm doing wrong d'you think?

You misread the post.

Um, I don't know why you'd say that. Savadgeduck said using linux would
affect his (the op) ability to improve his photography. I said it wouldn't.

The Duck is saying just the opposite.

I think he's saying the above


No. You've misread entirely. The photographer should not at all be
aware of the OS.

To process photography on a Linux machine requires more awareness and
expertise of the OS v. OS X or even the Redmond abomination.

Linux is at best third choice of photography professionals and
dedicated amateurs and that is reflected by the lack of commercial
support for it in Linux land.

Absolutely!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013113012253670791-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?

You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.

indeed you don't. a few clicks and you can do what he described, and
more.

On 2013-11-30 20:59:47 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2013113012253670791-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?

You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.

indeed you don't. a few clicks and you can do what he described, and
more.

It seems to be that way to me.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/30/2013 4:47 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:45:26 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
[...] most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.

That in fact seems to be *your* most serious impediment to
improving your photography.

The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is
eventually going to allow him to produce better results...]

I am curious how you come up with this. To me, it's like saying a
better developing pan will lead to better photographs when working
with film.

No, it's more like having a drawer full of different sized trays
means the user can choose which one is most efficient for any
given job. That leads to a more effective system than one where
the only trays available come in just one size (that fits all,
supposedly).

Since most people never printed anything larger that an 8x10,
they don't see a difference. But for the photographer that
pushes the limits, trays large enough for 16x20 and 20x24 prints
make a huge difference. Not to mention they immediately bought
something like an El Nikkor lens rather than use the one that
came with the enlarger.

And while a 35mm enlarger from Ponder and Best or Durst, or even
the low end Beseler or Omega models might seem like a great
production tool for many, real darkroom workers wouldn't
consider anything less that a Beseler 23C, and would rather have
either a Beseler or an Omega 4x5 enlarger, even if all they ever
work with is 35mm film.

I used a 23C, IIRC I had three heads for it. Color, condenser and
fluorescent.


It's the difference between printing today with an Epson 2800
or using an Epson 4880 or 7890.


Many a fine art print has been made with the 2880 and 3880. IMO the 4880
is designed for higher output. I may have been told wrong, but i thought
the 4880 produced prints that were equal in quality to the other two,
but was designed for higher production rates, and larger format.

.... and roll feed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

Agreed

.... and now I use Windows!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-11-30 21:38:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Many a fine art print has been made with the 2880 and 3880. IMO the 4880
is designed for higher output. I may have been told wrong, but i thought
the 4880 produced prints that were equal in quality to the other two,
but was designed for higher production rates, and larger format.

... and roll feed.

The R2880 can deal with 13'' x 32' & 13'' x 20' rolls supplied by
Epson, Red River Paper, or Moab.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:25:36 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 17:28:31 +0000, sid said:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-11-30 15:20:07 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:21:05 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 02:45:26 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
[...] most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.


...and having to think about how to maneuver around the arcane
mechanics of an OS to process digital images rather than the mechanics
of the style and subjects of our photography is an impediment &
distraction.

What "archane mechanics" do you suppose one has to maneuver inorder to
process images.

I refer you to Floyd's response providing what can best be describes as
"arcane":

To be found in:
From: (Floyd L. Davidson)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:30:23 -0900
Message-ID:

"Note that UFRAW is a lot more than and "interface" using DCRAW.
It uses DCRAW as the basic converter engine, but has it's own
processing for many other of the enhancement tools you need.

--- very long snip ---

Also be aware that with Linux if you become proficient at writing
shell scripts there is just no end of ways to improve productivity.
The ImageMagick tools are fabulous for editing. And there are
many ways a shell script can speed up your workflow. For example,
I preview my images, as JPEGs, with a very customized version of XV which can
sort them into various directories. The JPEG images I don't want to convert
with UFRAW go into one special directory, and then a shell script moves
the RAW files to the same directories where the JPEG is now at. Then
I run UFRAW and it never loads a file I don't want to process. Plus
when I want to run the batch on all of them, I use a script that does
odd things like automatically setting wavelet noise reduction depending
on the ISO it was shot at, and it determines how many CPU cores are available
and proceeds to keep each CPU busy with a different process (which with
as many as 12 cores can make a huge difference in how fast a few hundred
RAW files can be converted to TIFF files)."

Tell me that isn't arcane.

What Lloyd has described is the setup and configuration he uses for
his process. It seem s hell of a long and convoluted but it's no worse
than the process I'm still going through for setting up LR5. If I've
understood him correctly it will be no more difficult for Lloyd to run
than LR5 will be for me once I've got it all sorted out.



Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?

You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.

You have probably already done it but using configuration windows and
menus etc. Lloyd uses a script.

I have a workflow in Lightroom & Photoshop which might come as a
surprise to you, is smooth and efficient, without a thought as to the
under pinnings of the OS, I am sure the same is true for those using LR
& PS in the Windows environment.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_422.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_423.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-11-30 21:41:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

Agreed

... and now I use Windows!

What's to hide, open the Terminal in a Mac and Unix lovers can go for
it, and play with the command line to their heart's content. It is
there, a click away for anybody who wants to go that route, and many do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_(OS_X)

It just adds to what we know Floyd, and I guess you are really not
familiar with Macs and OSX. There are all sorts of things you can do
with a Mac that have nothing to do with preconceived misconceptions of
OSX.

http://www.cultofmac.com/215174/mast...r-mac-feature/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:47:30 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:45:26 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
[...] most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.

That in fact seems to be *your* most serious impediment to
improving your photography.

The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is
eventually going to allow him to produce better results...]

I am curious how you come up with this. To me, it's like saying a
better developing pan will lead to better photographs when working
with film.

No, it's more like having a drawer full of different sized trays
means the user can choose which one is most efficient for any
given job. That leads to a more effective system than one where
the only trays available come in just one size (that fits all,
supposedly).

Since most people never printed anything larger that an 8x10,
they don't see a difference. But for the photographer that
pushes the limits, trays large enough for 16x20 and 20x24 prints
make a huge difference. Not to mention they immediately bought
something like an El Nikkor lens rather than use the one that
came with the enlarger.

And while a 35mm enlarger from Ponder and Best or Durst, or even
the low end Beseler or Omega models might seem like a great
production tool for many, real darkroom workers wouldn't
consider anything less that a Beseler 23C, and would rather have
either a Beseler or an Omega 4x5 enlarger, even if all they ever
work with is 35mm film.

It's the difference between printing today with an Epson 2800
or using an Epson 4880 or 7890.

I'm trying to follow this, Floyd, in a non-argumentative way, but I
still don't get it. As far as I know, there is no limitation of which
printer can be used based on the OS. I see nothing in the specs for
the Epson 4880 that says I can't add it to my Windows system or to an
Apple system.

Read just what was said, and do not imagine what you think
should/could have been said.

I didn't discuss how printer operation might change with the OS,
I compared using printers *to* using OS's.

So, that seems to mean that external device usage is not your reason
for preferring one OS to another.

Well, goodness... Perry Mason might hire you as an investigator?

Pay attention to what was said!

Another poster has suggested availability of more apps. For this to
be the case, there would have to be apps on the market that are not
already available cross-platform, and that these apps would offer some
significant advantages to the apps that are available cross-platform.

What would these apps be?

I could care less. It's just not important.

It's also been suggested, in a roundabout way, that reducing
post-processing time allows the user to spend more time photographing
things. There's some validity to that concept, but taking more
photographs doesn't mean taking better photographs unless you consider
that more photographs means better chances of taking a good
photography by accident.

Another bogus argument.

What does make a difference is realizing that Ansel Adams was
right, we take exposures and *make* photographs. Of course
better tools do help to make better photographs. And learning
those better tools allows one to be more creative with
pre-visualization in the preliminary steps of creating a
photograph, when we are engaged in taking the exposures.

For the high-volume photographer, organization for selection is the
most time-consuming aspect. If that photographer took 1,000 shots of
an event, reviewing those 1,000 shots and determining which are worthy
of efforts in post is the part that takes up time. The actual post
work on the individual shots is minimal if the photographer has decent
skills using the camera.

Bull**** son. I use a highly modified version of a very old program
called XV to sort images. Going through 1000 pictures takes about
15 to 20 minutes at most. Just about 1 per second, more or less.

The actual processing of most of the selected images might take
many minutes each. It of course depends on what the images are
used for. When I shoot events I might well shoot up to 1000
exposures, and of those there might be 90% that get batch
processed in a relative uncritical way. For that particular
part of the production processing and previewing might, at best,
happen to be nearly equal. But then the selected 50 or so
images that I want to create photographic art from may take 20
minutes each, or 2 hours or more each for the best of those.

Regardless, processing is always far more time consuming than
previewing. That is probably due to both the tools and talent
used for sorting, and certainly relates to the artistic intent
for processing.

The more skill one has with a camera the more likely there will
be images that take more than an hour to process. I don't shoot
with the intention of ever using a camera produced JPEG image, I
shoot to collect data targeted at being processed very
precisely and I make every effort to provide a data set
appropriate to my workflow.

If one OS means the organization can be done faster or simpler, then
you'd have a point for a limited number of photographers. But, is it
the OS that would allow this?

It is.

So, how can a different OS make a person a better photographer?

There are other requirements. One is being able to *use* an OS
to *make* better tools. If selecting what has been made by
others is the upper limit, it perhaps doesn't make a lot of
difference. Of course there are variations on that too, and
while some people can never visualize how to put three or four
primitives together, or how to generalize a procedure to create
a useful tool, others can do that to varying degrees. There are
people who write scripts at the drop of a hat, others compile
plugins with no hesitation, and some can throw together an
entire application. Different OS's make that process more or
less difficult, in varying ways at different levels!

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