A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 6th 14, 02:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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.
  #12  
Old April 6th 14, 02:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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.
  #13  
Old April 6th 14, 02:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article , Alan Browne
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?


I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to
use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v.
Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy.

And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more
quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...


the gimp is roughly where photoshop was about a decade ago and it still
lacks some features that photoshop had *two* decades ago and some
things aren't even on its roadmap going forward and will likely never
get.

meanwhile, photoshop keeps advancing, along with a plethora of other
apps, including on mobile devices.

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).


that's it exactly.

in fact, there are some operations that are an order of magnitude
slower in the gimp than with other apps, and on the exact same
hardware! plus, the gimp's user interface was designed by geeks (if you
can even call it designed), not artists.

in other words, while you 'can' do similar things with the gimp, it
takes a lot more hassle and time. who wants that?

it's also important to note that the gimp fanbois haven't other apps
(with rare exception), whereas the gimp critics have used the
alternatives and have actually compared them side by side.
  #14  
Old April 6th 14, 03:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bob[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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?

Bob
  #15  
Old April 6th 14, 04:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bob[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.04.05, 19:40 , Bob wrote:
In article ,
nospam 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?


I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to
use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v.
Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy.

And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more
quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...

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).


And so does that make those of us that don't have
the problems with Gimp that you do dumber?

Bob
  #16  
Old April 6th 14, 04:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bob[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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?

Bob
  #17  
Old April 6th 14, 04:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Jeffery Small
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

(Jeffery Small) wrote:
I thought I would post this to the digital group to see if there were any
Minolta or Sony users who used the UFRaw converter software with their raw
image files. I have been having serious problems and wanted to see if this
was observed by others. Here is my story.

Ubuntu 13.10 system running on an Asus U56E system
UFRaw ver. 0.19.2
Dcraw ver. 9.19.1
GIMP ver. 2.8.6
Darktable ver. 1.2.3
Shotwell ver. 0.15.0

When attempting to load Minolta (mrw) and Sony (arw) raw image files into
GIMP, the UFRaw plug-in is not properly processing them. The following
webpage has images which demonstrate the problem:

http://smallthoughts.com/photos/misc/GIMP/index.html

The raw files are being imported with distorted color, exposure and
contrast. However, as the additional images show, other programs such as
Darktable and Shotwell and the Minolta/Sony editing programs (on Windows)
are importing and displaying these raw files properly.

Has anyone else been experiencing similar problems with their raw files of
any type?


Typically UFRAW is configured to save the current configuration as the
default for the next image, which means (with that option enabled) you
must set all configuration options each time UFRAW is started. Or another
way to put it, there is no standard set of defaults that will always be
somewhere close. If the last image processed was way out in left field,
the next one will not even come close to looking right unless it is also
off into left field.


Thanks. That's good to know. However, I cannot understand the logic
behind this behavior. Shouldn't the program read the camera settings for
the exposure as shot an then adjust the default settings to match what was
the target exposure selected by the user? This would make more sense to
me. If you're adjusting a series of pictures, it would then make sense to
allow the current set of adjustments to be stored and easily reapplied on
the fly.

With the screen shots you are showing we can't tell anything other than
what "exposure" is set for. There are two places where a gamma curve can
be set, plus slider options for gamma value and gamma linearity. (If it
is compiled in, you may also have a slider option for "contrast".) Any of
those, with odd defaults, might be the cause of the way the RGB image is
being produced.


There are a number of ways, if you need a standard default configuration,
to accomplish that.


You could configure UFRAW to have one preset default configuration used
for every image. Sounds good, but in practice that will cost a huge
amount of processing time unless you actually do RAW conversions one at a
time (for example using UFRAW as a plugin to GIMP to preprocess individual
images).


The most efficient workflow is usually invoking UFRAW interactively on a
directory full of RAW files, and writing only the "ID" file for each while
using it interactively. When finished with all of the RAW files UFRAW is
then invoked as a batch process to produce the RGB output files (while you
can then take a coffee break or whatever).


At the beginning of the interactive session every configuration option is
set as desired, and the configuration for each image is the default for
the next.


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


Thanks for all the great information, Floyd. I haven't been using UFRaw as
I thought it was broken. I'll spend some time with it and see if I can get
a better grasp on its nuances.

Regards,
--
Jeff
  #18  
Old April 6th 14, 04:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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. 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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #19  
Old April 6th 14, 05:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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.

what is being said is that the gimp is inefficient, slow and clunky,
with the alternatives leaving it in the dust.
  #20  
Old April 6th 14, 05:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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?


I can't reply for nospam, but having attempted on several occasions to
use the Gimp for a photography workflow, it's many shortcomings v.
Photoshop came to the surface in a jiffy.

And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more
quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...

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).


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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users Chris Malcolm[_2_] 35mm Photo Equipment 4 June 3rd 12 10:41 AM
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users Joe Kotroczo Digital Photography 0 May 31st 12 08:14 PM
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users Joe Kotroczo 35mm Photo Equipment 0 May 31st 12 08:14 PM
GIMP and UFraw jeff worsnop Digital Photography 8 December 8th 08 04:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.