Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jeffery Small, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. 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, Apr 5, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.

    >
    > That is certainly one alternative. But perhaps not the
    > best.


    it is if one wants better results with less hassle.

    > 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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #3
  4. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #4
  5. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #5
  6. 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
     
    Jeffery Small, Apr 6, 2014
    #6
  7. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #7
  8. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #8
  9. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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?


    definitely not.

    not only is the gimp not at all efficient in what it does do, but it
    can't do a lot of things that other software has been doing for *years*
    and given its road map, it won't ever be doing.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #9
  10. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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'.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #10
  11. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #11
  12. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #12
  13. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #13
  14. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #14
  15. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #15
  16. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014040522524022304-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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 fucking 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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #16
  17. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #17
  18. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #18
  19. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > >Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
    > >these things using Photoshop. See for example
    > >http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration2/index.html>

    >
    > Read it a little closer Eric, Roger Clark did not use
    > PhotoShop for Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional
    > sharpening, he also didn't even mention the Wavelet
    > sharpening that I have previously commented on.


    read it closer yourself. what he *didn't* use was the gimp.

    photoshop has deconvolution built-in, but if that isn't to your liking,
    there are plug-ins available that can do exactly what you want.

    > Clark does describe Unsharp Mask using PhotoShop to be
    > specifically much the same as USM is in other editors.


    no surprise there.

    in fact, usm and many other image processing functions are built into
    os x itself on both mac and ios. it's basically one line of code.

    > He also points out the "Smart Sharpen" is the kind of
    > problem that I described, where the user cannot tell
    > what it might do. Some settings may use a different mix
    > of two or more types of sharpening. It's the kind of
    > thing you just adjust until it looks "wonderful", and
    > have no idea if that setting would also be useful on the
    > next image or not.


    nonsense. if you use it you'll know what it does or doesn't do and
    whether it's appropriate for the 'next image' or not. you can also
    choose to not use it at all.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #19
  20. Jeffery Small

    nospam Guest

    In article <201404060047514157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>> 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.


    not only is he ignorant of what photoshop can and cannot do (any
    version, not just cs6) as well as what other apps are available on both
    platforms, but he's also very ignorant about mac and windows
    themselves.

    i can't help but notice that just about everyone who claims the gimp is
    great has never used anything else. it's all they know.

    on the other hand, those who actually have used both the gimp and other
    apps can readily see just how limited and clunky the gimp really is.
     
    nospam, Apr 6, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Want to use ufraw and gimp

    , Apr 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    750
    Paul Allen
    Apr 28, 2006
  2. joe mama

    Any GIMP users (Linux)

    joe mama, May 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    93
    Views:
    1,632
    ASAAR
    Jul 9, 2006
  3. Clair Johnston

    Re: GIMP and UFraw

    Clair Johnston, Dec 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    415
    Clair Johnston
    Dec 7, 2008
  4. Jurgen

    Re: GIMP and UFraw

    Jurgen, Dec 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
    Jurgen
    Dec 7, 2008
  5. Jeffery Small

    Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

    Jeffery Small, Apr 12, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    95
    Jeffery Small
    Apr 12, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page