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,
     
    Jeffery Small, Apr 5, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    it is if one wants better results with less hassle.
    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    he wrote it because it's true.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #3
  4. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    neither.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #4
  5. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

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

    Guest Guest

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

    Guest Guest

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

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #9
  10. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

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

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

    good software 'just works'.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #10
  11. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    not as effectively or as efficiently as with other software.
    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'.
    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.
    more nonsense.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #11
  12. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    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.
    nothing about photoshop prevents that.
    more nonsense.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #12
  13. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    yet so few professionals use linux and the gimp, so obviously it lacks
    what actual professionals demand. in other words, you're wrong.
    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.
    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #13
  14. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    they're vastly superior for producing any type of photo, from snapshots
    to major ad campaigns, catalogues, formal portraits or whatever else.
    yet those with higher aspirations almost always choose mac or windows.
    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.
    why cite an example you don't use?
    a better job at what?

    you haven't used photoshop so you don't know what it does or doesn't do
    better.
    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.
    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.
    pros buy just about any app or hardware they want, and they
    consistently choose products *other* than linux and the gimp.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #14
  15. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

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

    Guest Guest

    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.
    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.
    more nonsense. the gimp is roughly ten years behind photoshop and still
    lacks some things that photoshop had 20 years ago.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    same with any other software.
    same with any other software.
    nobody is throwing paint balls at canvas, although that is considered
    to be art by some.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #16
  17. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    that's not unique to the gimp, and other apps offer more options.
    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...
    actually, you are.
    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #17
  18. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

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

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #19
  20. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    It seems that only Floyd has kept the original poster's question in
    mind. The poster didn't ask what OS or what software would be an
    improvement on what he has. He asked what can be done to work with
    what he has.

    Floyd - presumably - did a good job in answering this. I say
    "presumably" because I use neither Linux nor Gimp and don't know how
    practical Floyd's response was.

    It's too bad that questions like the original poster's get diverted
    into battles over OS and software with the same old points being
    rehashed over-and-over. Nothing new was brought up.

    You'd think some people have just discovered that Photoshop is a good
    program and feel compelled to tell the world about it.
     
    Tony Cooper, Apr 6, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.