Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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?

Regards,
--
Jeff

(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.

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)

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

In article , Jeffery Small wrote:

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.

it should, but many times it can't because that information is
encrypted.

what a lot of software does is apply its own defaults to give you
something usable, and then you can take it from there.

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.

lightroom can apply adjustments to as many photos as you want as well
as saving them as a preset.

....snip...

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.

if you have to spend so much time to get it to work, then it is broken.

good software 'just works'.

(Jeffery Small) wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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.

If you have 1000 images to process it makes great sense!
If you only do 20 images, it really is better. If you
do 1 or 10 it doesn't make a lot of difference.

Also it's a matter of whether you adjust your selection
of keepers to match the processing defaults, or whether
you adjust the configuration to match your photographs.
To do the former it is much easier to simply set the
camera to shoot JPEG... and if you shoot RAW it is a
waste of time to bother with the camera's JPEG
configuration.

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.

Sounds good on the surface, but really isn't important
at all. I shoot RAW, and could care less what the
camera configuration is simply because I have no need to
take the time to reconfigure the camera's JPEG
configuration, using guesses that cannot ever by precise
enough and will eventually be discarded anyway.

But there is also the problem of knowing exactly what
the camera settings are. Only the manufacturer really
knows, as nobody else can look at their software. (No
it is not encryption as some claim.) The camera has
many adjustments, and keeps track of them with nice
incremental numbers, say from -10 to +10 for hue,
sharpness, etc etc. But exactly what does the software
do when it is set to sharpness of 5 and hue of -4?

But who cares anyway, because the setting on the camera
is a guess that must be preset, and has very course
granularity. Post processing allows configuration by
inspection, and with much finer granularity.

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.

Exactly. If nothing changed from one image to the next,
press the "save" button and go to the next. If you save
only the ID file in UFRAW that takes a fraction of a
second. A person can whip through hundreds of images
fairly fast. Lots of times out of say 400 shots there
will be only about 3 or 4 different configurations
needed for 380 of the shots, and then maybe 20 or so
that are totally individual. That means changing
configuration only 24 times rather than having to do it
400 times. Huge efficiency advantage.

Also, saving only the ID file while working
interactively means that you can go from one image to
the next in an instant. If each image is interpolated
and saved as you go it takes a huge amount of your time,
while you sit and wait for it to finish. With only an
ID file saved, the time intensive interpolation is done
as a batch process while you do other things. Again, a
huge efficiency advantage.

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.

It takes time to catch the significance of many of it's
features. One of the primary advantages of the way much
of the Linux software is designed is because it is well
thought out for an advanced user, but that makes the
learning curve steeper too. Much of the "advantage"
claimed for Windows and Mac users is because software
can be designed to make it easier for a new user. That
is wonderful while you are a new user, without critical
needs...

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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

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.

It takes time to catch the significance of many of it's
features. One of the primary advantages of the way much
of the Linux software is designed is because it is well
thought out for an advanced user, but that makes the
learning curve steeper too. Much of the "advantage"
claimed for Windows and Mac users is because software
can be designed to make it easier for a new user. That
is wonderful while you are a new user, without critical
needs...

wrong.

mac/win software is designed for users of all levels.

it offers easy ways for a newbie to get started and get useful results,
while also offering the power and features that advanced users need.

unlike linux software, it's not intentionally hard to use, mainly so
that geeks can talk down to others, as you do.

you've never used a mac or windows system more than casually and
certainly haven't used any of the image processing software available,
notably photoshop and lightroom, so you haven't any inkling of a clue
what they can and cannot do. you are talking out your ass.

Floyd:

Thanks again for all of the very helpful information. I'll keep working
with UFRaw until I master its capabilities!

Regards,
--
Jeff

On 2014.04.07, 00:31 , Jeffery Small wrote:
Floyd:

Thanks again for all of the very helpful information. I'll keep working
with UFRaw until I master its capabilities!

Did you get the raws from the Sony to import correctly in UFRaw/Gimp?


--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

On 2014.04.05, 15:21 , 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.

I've kicked The Gimp off my system, but back when it was loaded I had no
issues loading raw files via UFRaw. (Sony a900). (Actually at some
point I had other issues with UFraw running at all - but fixed after
some fanagling - don't recall if that was under Linux or OS X).

The default (or however you have them) UFRaw settings might not be
"nominal" - so go over them one by one and attempt to find if any are
really way off. Set the channel multipliers to 1 (to begin),
temperature to 5000K (more or less) and so on. It may just be your
defaults are too wacky.

(I notice for example that the WB setting is "0" in your examples. Not
sure if that's a correct or useful WB value in The Gimp. Likewise your
channel multiplier values @ 4 and 2 in the 2nd/3rd examples may be quite
a way off - or not).

All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should
seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp.

--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

Alan Browne wrote:

All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should
seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp.

That is certainly one alternative. But perhaps not the
best. Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be
possible for some people, but it can be a superior
choice for others.


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