Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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?

What he says has zero significance. The fact is he
can't use it effectively, and others can.

not as effectively or as efficiently as with other software.

At a lower level it is probably quite true that other
software is easier to learn, up to a level that is
sufficient for those who merely want to be "sufficient".

other software is not only easier to learn but users are more
productive and can produce far better results in less time.

that makes the gimp 'sufficient' and other software 'powerful'.

If you want perfection and work at the extreme ends,
things become a lot different. Linux allows a great
deal of flexibility that simply cannot be accomplished
with any ease using Windows. A Mac is inbetween.

nonsense.

whatever you can do in the gimp can be done in less time on a mac or
windows system using any of a wider variety of software.

linux users don't have any of those options. they're stuck with the
gimp. it's all they know.

GIMP is just fine, for a perfectionist. It's holy
terror for those who only need to skim the surface.

more nonsense.

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!

tell us how great it is to not have adjustment layers, non-destructive
workflow and the inability to use a wealth of plug-ins that can do
whatever you want, for starters.

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.

nonsense.

But with GIMP it is possible to combine, in proportions
of the users choice, Wavelet sharpening, High Pass
sharpening, Unsharp Mask, and Richardson-Lucy
Deconvolutional sharpening.

nothing about photoshop prevents that.

Photoshop is fine if you are willing to settle for "good
enough", but if you know the difference you'll get
between *proper* application of USM, HP sharpen and RL
sharpen there is no comparison.

more nonsense.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


But I'm very positive that Linux and GIMP provide both a
flexible platform and the functionality necessary to do
professional work with photography.

yet so few professionals use linux and the gimp, so obviously it lacks
what actual professionals demand. in other words, you're wrong.

I don't do cinematography, but that has also been done
with Linux.

in a render farm, not as a desktop system.

movies are almost always made with final cut and/or avid and then
offloaded to a render farm, whose system makes no difference whatsoever
to the user.

The main point is that it doesn't do exactly the same
things that they are used to with Windows or a Mac.

that's the whole point. the gimp is so far behind the curve it's not
even funny.

the gimp still lacks adjustment layers, which photoshop had *twenty*
years ago.

the gimp also doesn't support a non-destructive workflow and doesn't
appear to be getting it any time soon.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

I suppose for people who lack certain abilities and do
not have critical needs, that might appear to be true.

nonsense.

Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for
producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family
album or to post on Facebook.

they're vastly superior for producing any type of photo, from snapshots
to major ad campaigns, catalogues, formal portraits or whatever else.

For those who have higher aspirations there are
alternatives that are better.

yet those with higher aspirations almost always choose mac or windows.

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.

How about those who only think about the results, and
are able to get better results using Linux and GIMP...

says the person who has never used adobe products, so how do you even
know?? you don't.

those of us who *have* used both can see just how ludicrous that
statement is.

I don't do astrophotography, as an example, but see
where many of those who do use Linux and associated
tools. And others don't.

why cite an example you don't use?

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.

GIMP is not the same as "Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or
lightroom" for you, but the alternate view is that you
simply don't seem able to use GIMP, even when it would
do a better job.

a better job at what?

you haven't used photoshop so you don't know what it does or doesn't do
better.

Who exactly has the problem? You or
the program that others can use to do what you can't?

the problem is that the gimp is less capable than photoshop and other
options.

and a bigger problem is that you think that using the gimp is some sort
of achievement that lesser folks are incapable of.

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.

So you make your decisions according to what you see as
the most popular? Everyone that lacks any idea of what
an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy
this!

most people don't buy photoshop or lightroom because it's popular. they
buy it because they're two of the best, if not the best, of what's
available.

I buy what will best produce the results I need.

pros buy just about any app or hardware they want, and they
consistently choose products *other* than linux and the gimp.

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.

In article 2014040522524022304-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for
producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family
album or to post on Facebook.

Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good
job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They
also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill*
snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game.

not only a pretty good job, but windows and os x are what pros choose
when the absolute highest quality is not only desired, but *required*.

you don't see ad agencies or commercial photographers ****ing around
with the gimp. it's almost always adobe photoshop and lightroom.

For those who have higher aspirations there are
alternatives that are better.

You seem to be taking a somewhat lofty and condescending perch there Floyd.

it's all he can do when there's no facts behind his arguments.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

What needs to be added is that it is only true for those
who are unable or unwilling (as in having no reason) to
become expert in its use.

nope.

on the very same hardware and doing the same operations, the gimp is
anywhere from a little slower to as much as an order of magnitude
slower. the skill of the user is irrelevant. this can be measured with
a stopwatch.

and then there's the user interface, which for the gimp, is designed by
geeks, not artists, so it's an obstacle for those who are artistically
inclined. photoshop's interface was designed by the very artists who
use it, which is why it's so efficient to use.

For an expert user with critical needs Linux is far
better,

nonsense.

if that were remotely true, the expert users would pick linux, and they
don't. they mostly pick macs for graphic arts, photography, etc.

and GIMP is the equal of anything.

more nonsense. the gimp is roughly ten years behind photoshop and still
lacks some things that photoshop had 20 years ago.

The biggest
difference is that with Linux and GIMP you have to know
what you want the software to produce.

you have to know what you want with any software.

if you think photoshop or any other software magically figures out what
you want then you're dumber than i thought.

With most other
software there has been significant effort put into
showing a user how to produce "satisfactory results"
(which is just annoying cruft for an expert).

nonsense.

quality apps are designed so that *everyone* can get good results,
regardless of their skill level.

newbies can use the wizards and automatic features while the advanced
users can dig as deep as they want and do whatever they want.

the fact that you keep saying that photoshop is suitable for only
'satisfactory results' or 'grandma's photos' shows just how ignorant
you are about photoshop and what it can do.

With some software you have a slider for "sharpness",
and by looking at the image it can be adjusted to get a
"sharper" image. Wow! It looks better than it did, and
that's wonderful. But you have no idea what it did, or
if something else could be better.

maybe you don't, but others know what it does and most of the time it
doesn't actually matter. what matters is whether it looks the way the
artist wants it to look and obtaining that result with minimal fuss.

With GIMP you have
to know which type of a sharpen process will produce the
results that you want.

same with any other software.

What you get isn't just "It
looks better than it did". It looks the way you want it
to.

same with any other software.

That's creativity in practice, as opposed to throwing
paint balls at canvas to creat art.

nobody is throwing paint balls at canvas, although that is considered
to be art by some.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

What are these *certain abilities* and *critical needs* folks who do
not choose to use Linux lack?

Customized workflow is just the start.

that's not unique to the gimp, and other apps offer more options.

I can't imagine taking the time necessary to properly process images on
Windows or OSX. (In the way I want them processed, not the way others
do or you do.)

of course not, because you are too closed minded to see any other
option than the gimp.

the fact that you think that other apps restricts the way you can
process images shows just how little you know about the other apps.

you can process images any way you want and more often than not, in
less time and with less hassle than it would take with the gimp.

....snip...

You capture decent enough images and your GIMP workflow works for you,
but your GIMP/Linux advocacy where you denigrate all who disagree with
your choices does nothing to advance your cause.

I don't care if you find another program better for your
uses. I'm not saying that other programs are useless,
ineffective, and all the other trash talk that *you*
heap on choices other than your own.

I'm not the one dumping on other's choices...

actually, you are.

I am dumping on your habit of trash talking anything
you can't or don't use.

that's quite a bit of hypocrisy, given that you freely admit you've
never used adobe products, and you also made some fundamental errors
about mac and windows systems a couple of months back too.

you have *no* idea what they can and cannot do, yet you bash them and
their users.

On 2014-04-06 06:33:24 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-06 05:14:36 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
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.
I suppose for people who lack certain abilities and do
not have critical needs, that might appear to be true.

What are these *certain abilities* and *critical needs* folks who do
not choose to use Linux lack?

Customized workflow is just the start.

PS & LR workflow is quite customizable. It is scriptable, actions can
be written, presets created, and more.

I can't imagine taking the time necessary to properly process images on
Windows or OSX. (In the way I want them processed, not the way others
do or you do.)

I guess that is because you have never used either OS.

Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for
producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family
album or to post on Facebook.

Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good
job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They

As for example using Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper to filter
resampling algorithms? :-)

You haven't checked on Photoshop lately have you?

also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill*
snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game.

For those who have higher aspirations there are
alternatives that are better.

You seem to be taking a somewhat lofty and condescending perch there Floyd.

Compared to what you've posted???? Get real.

I don't claim to be a creator of great photographic art. However, what
I produce I do with deliberation and thought to reach satisfying
results. Not everything I share is perfect, sometime there are
problems. Sometimes I find a solution to a particular problem, many
times I don't, but I have no problem sharing those image to see if
there is something I can learn from constructive criticism.
So is there a particular image of mine which you can point to with
particular distain?

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.
How about those who only think about the results, and
are able to get better results using Linux and GIMP...

Better results? Better results than what?

Than they can using other software.

I have yet to see evidence of that, presented by you or any other GIMP acolyte.

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.
GIMP is not the same as "Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or
lightroom" for you,

Correct. It is lacking when compared with PS CS6.CC an LR5.

It lacks what *you* can understand and use. That's a
personal problem, eh?

My understanding and ability use a particular piece of software is no
problem at all.
Once more your peculiar arrogant and condescending attitude towards
those who don't kowtow to your way of thinking is obvious.

but the alternate view is that you simply don't seem
able to use GIMP, even when it would
do a better job.

I can, and have used GIMP. As to doing a better job I disagree.

But you can't figure out how to use it effectively...

Why would I need to once I have determined that I have software which
does a better job for ME?

A problem that others don't have.

Other Linux-GIMP users, not exactly a large sampling. The only
non-Linux users using GIMP are those frugal folks mining the open
source freeware well.

Who exactly has the problem? You or
the program that others can use to do what you can't?

Why is it a problem? I don't usually use GIMP, so no problem.
What is it that I am not supposed to be able to do?

One would think you would be able to ascertain where the
problem is and avoid petty bias in discussing this
topic. If you don't want to use GIMP that is fine, but
not when you say that because you are unable to use it
effectively means others should avoid it despite the
fact that it clearly can be very effectively used and is
extremely efficient for those who do.

I say I find GIMP lacking when it doesn't fit MY workflow. Obviously it
is a perfect match for you.

The reality is, while GIMP is a capable editor, it is not as good as
you claim it to be when compared with digital imaging software
available for Win or OSX. It is undoubtably the best you have available
to run under Linux.

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.
So you make your decisions according to what you see as
the most popular?

No. I make my decisions based on what does the job for me in the most
efficient manner.

And blame your personal limitations on others.

So you are privy to my personal limitations are you? Damn! You must be
an astute and perceptive reader of character.

Everyone that lacks any idea of what
an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy
this!
I buy what will best produce the results I need.

Actually that is what I do.

You might, but when you advise others that is not what
you say.

I made my buying choices after serious and deliberate consideration
including taking a hard look at GIMP.
You made yours based on what would fit your Linux model, without even
running any of the Win or OSX software. You seem to be quite ignorant
of the current capabilities and features of PS CS6/CC.

It seems that when it comes to image
editing software, given the MSRP of GIMP you don't actually buy
anything other than very good cameras & glass.

Oh? In fact it is more. You buy into a system that
requires a great deal of learning, no matter which it
is. It may also, if you do have a need for the
effectiveness described, need hardware that matches.
There's no free lunch.

Nice rationalization there.

You capture decent enough images and your GIMP workflow works for you,
but your GIMP/Linux advocacy where you denigrate all who disagree with
your choices does nothing to advance your cause.

I don't care if you find another program better for your
uses. I'm not saying that other programs are useless,
ineffective, and all the other trash talk that *you*
heap on choices other than your own.

Like the trash talk you heap on non-Linux and non-GIMP users.

I'm not the one dumping on other's choices...

I am dumping on your habit of trash talking anything
you can't or don't use.

The only one trash talking here is you. I can and have used GIMP, but I
certainly don't use it now.

None of the examples
of your work which we have seen presents an argument for the
superiority of GIMP over any other software. Your sense of superiority
over others of us in these photo NGs is misplaced.

I don't recall dumping on your work, or suggesting mine
is superior to anyones.

No! Just check this thread, particularly a few lines above where you
say; "Compared to what you've posted???? Get real."

Seems you have a real problem
with justifying yourself as an individual.

Not me. I know my limitations as a photographer, and my post processing
skills, and yet I seem to be able to produce a few quite acceptable
images, for both print and online sharing.

But it is true that I don't mind at all if my own
photography is used as an example of what can be done
with Linux and GIMP. Whatever it may or may not be, it
certainly isn't non-existant which your claims suggest!

Where did I claim that your work was "non-existant" (sic)?
What I claimed is that nothing you have presented to us supports your
argument that GIMP post processing is in anyway superior (as you claim)
to any other software. What you have shown us is not in anyway
extraordinary photographic art work. No better or worse than examples
posted by some of the more competent and decently equipped shooters in
this room.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:44:45 -0400, 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!

tell us how great it is to not have adjustment layers, non-destructive
workflow and the inability to use a wealth of plug-ins that can do
whatever you want, for starters.

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.

nonsense.

But with GIMP it is possible to combine, in proportions
of the users choice, Wavelet sharpening, High Pass
sharpening, Unsharp Mask, and Richardson-Lucy
Deconvolutional sharpening.

nothing about photoshop prevents that.

Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
these things using Photoshop. See for example
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...on2/index.html

Photoshop is fine if you are willing to settle for "good
enough", but if you know the difference you'll get
between *proper* application of USM, HP sharpen and RL
sharpen there is no comparison.

more nonsense.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens