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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
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. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
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. That in fact seems to be *your* most serious impediment to improving your photography. Not really, there is a whole shopping list of other things which impede the improvement of my photography. The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is eventually going to allow him to produce better results...] Locking himself into a single OS solution in the face of what is minimally recommended by the camera manufacturer, in this case Canon is certainly going to be a distraction of some degree. He doesn't seem to need the hand holding that the vast majority, including you, require. The lowest common denominator when it comes to consumers is not where a perfectionist, a professional, or even just an advanced photographer actually needs to be. But it is indeed where most of them are stuck. Floyd might have an answer, but be warned, he is a Nikon shooter. He didn't ask how to operate his camera though, and if he had I certainly would not be the one to ask, nor would I bother to try answering questions I know nothing about. I didn't think you would. So why do you respond to questions when you know nothing at all about the answer... I guess the subtle hint above was too vague? Good luck with your quest. True, because most answers here will be equal to yours... garble about a topic you don't know the answer to, or even enough to understand the questions. My knowledge of Linux is nonexistent, and I have little desire to dabble in those mysterious waters. So don't be telling others what the significance of using Linux is. My knowledge of GIMP is limited to making a comparison with Photoshop using OSX, and I found it lacking in several areas, but that is just ignorant me. I still have version 2.8.2 installed on my Mac, and I am probably not going to use it again, other than to remind myself why I don't use it. The biggest problem you'll face with GIMP is the different user interface concept. It was designed to be run under X, and by people used to X. The restrictions of the MS Windows systems are just as confusing to us as X is to you. Things like having anything ever run full screen, and having all windows in a single frame. Disgusting! I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have yours. (Mine is OSX). 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. I was correct with one thing, that you would be able to provide the OP with some assistance and direction in his quest. I don't underestimate your wealth of knowledge, as you do mine. But I don't seem to have underestimated your knowledge. As to my photographic skills, they have always been open to some improvement, at least for the last 60 odd years that I have had some idea of what a camera was when it was in my hnds. It is an ongoing learning situation for me, and I continue to learn with lessons coming from a variety of sources, including you. Anyone who can do anything is in the same boat. I've been doing this stuff for 50 years and all that means is that I can now finally learn some of the things that 10 years ago, never mind 20, were still far beyond my grasp. Some of that is the added experience, but some of it is the accessability to better learning tools with modern digital technology. Such as Linux... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: 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). if that isn't proof that linux users do things in the most difficult and most convoluted way possible, i don't know what is. Difficult? Perhaps for you. But it allows a faster and more effective workflow. Even if you don't understand why. Every time I need some complex task done repeatedly, and especially if the intervals between occasions when it is done are long enough that I am not likely to remember exactly how to get it perfect... I write a script. One example might give you an idea. A few years ago I developed a "menu flyer" for a local restaurant. Today there are a number other things, mostly signs and an annual calendar, that get printed using the same logos and so on, but the main product is still the menu. There is the flyer, there is a webpage (check out the menu at http://samandlees.com), a 12 page spiral bound table menu and a 12 page folder menu. Try doing that with a Windows system and make it so that changing the price or description of a "Sam & Lee's Burger" requires editing just one file and then typing "make" to update every version. Oh, and you can't use a "cookie cutter" software package template either, because when the owner tells you they want a specific change to the format it is never a menu choice and it also isn't optional! Between the Tex typesetting code, bash shell scripts and Makefiles, it's now right at 10,000 lines of code. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is eventually going to allow him to produce better results...] except he said he didn't want to switch to a more functional os. There ain't none, sonny. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
Savageduck wrote:
I stand amazed that you actually believe that the procedure you just expounded, is in anyway efficient and productive, just to justify the use of one OS over another. ...and in the end you still only have 8-bit editing & adjustment. Actually I can do 32 bit editing too. Your inability to see how that proceedure is more effective and efficient is not at all astounding. What part of it do you think your methods improve on??? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck: I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have yours. (Mine is OSX). 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. Haha. /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app Sure is hidden. -- Sandman[.net] |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
bd wrote:
Hi to Everyone ! I previously had an old Powershot G2, and I used "dcraw" to convert RAW images to such formats as tiff, ppm or jpg. I must state that I dont use MSWIN and don't intend to, so the software that is meant to be used with those cameras is useless to me. My favorite OS are Debian Squeeze on one PC, Ubuntu 13.04 on the other one. DCRAW works fine, but... the results are not as good looking as those that the camera delivers in jpg format, since, I suppose, the latter go through one or more enhancement processes such as sharpening, improving contours and contrasts through the use of various filters or in altering gamma factor etc.. I have tried to treat my converted raw pictures using various filters and else, but I never got results as good as expected, especially if compaired to those that the camera delivers in jpg. With my new EOS 600D, I use "ufraw", which works as an interface for dcraw. The results that I obtain are neither better nor worse than those with the G2. So, I wonder if anyone would know about what treatment Canon exactly applies to raw images so as to deliver enhanced jpeg pictures, either inside the camera, or through the software that they provide for use with MSWIN. Is there a place or address where I could expect to find this ? Short answer is no, whatever adjustments Canon make to produce their jpgs are their secrets. I also found dcraw and ufraw a bit lacking when I first started along the path that you are now on, 2006 in my case, so I settled on using Bibble. Corel have now purchased Bibble and market it as Aftershot Pro. I've found no reason to change and am currently using the final version of Bibble 5. Other open source alternatives are Digikam, RawTherapee and Darktable. I have to say though that having recently tried ufraw I was able to easily acheive my desired results, because I am much more aware now of what adjustment does what and how to achieve the look that I require. It does get easier the more you do it -- sid |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
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? Floyd might have an answer, but be warned, he is a Nikon shooter. Those Nikon shooters are a bit scary it's true, but a linux geek to boot, run for the hills -- sid |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Savageduck: I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have yours. (Mine is OSX). 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. Haha. /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app Sure is hidden. Yep. Why rename it and why not put it where it belongs! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
converting 35 mm slides to digital images | LeighWillaston | Digital Photography | 30 | June 18th 07 10:46 AM |
Converting 35mm Slides to Digital Images | Jim[_9_] | Digital Photography | 0 | June 2nd 07 02:18 PM |
Are you converting your RAW images to DNG? | JC Dill | Digital Photography | 140 | November 10th 06 04:07 PM |
QuickTake 150 images - Converting on PC | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | April 21st 06 03:00 PM |
Tool for converting 12-bit TIFF images to 16-bit TIFF-images? | Peter Frank | Digital Photography | 23 | December 13th 04 02:41 AM |