Raw photo software

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mayayana, Aug 11, 2012.

  1. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    you can't.

    the d3200 has a 24 mp sensor and the d3100 has a 14 mp sensor. it won't
    work.

    you can sometimes patch things when the cameras are almost the same,
    such as the d300 and d300s, or the d70 and d70s, but even then, you
    can't be completely sure you are getting optimal results since there
    may be some minor differences in what is in the raw file.
    did you use it with camera raw 7.1?

    anything earlier than that will not be able to open a d3200 image. you
    *must* have camera raw 7.1 (or later) for the d3200.

    <http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5389>
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mayayana

    David Taylor Guest

    On 14/08/2012 15:05, nospam wrote:
    []
    Whilst not doubting what you say, it does surprise me as most image file
    formats have well-defined fields for where the resolution of the image
    is given, so by simply examining the header of the file you can
    determine the number of pixels and the number of lines in the image. I
    would surprise me were the same not to be true of Nikon NEF files, so
    that a simple change of resolution should /not/ cause the file to be
    unreadable. Similarly, I would expect the number of "dark" pixels and
    lines to be stated in the file header, rather than having to be
    hard-coded into the application.

    Oh, well!
     
    David Taylor, Aug 14, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    --
    --
    | On Monday, August 13, 2012 3:34:00 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    | > | the problem is that you're using a dead end operating system.
    | >
    | > | any reason you aren't upgrading to windows 7?
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | > It's wildly overpriced, bloated, restrictive spyware that
    | >
    | > I'd like to avoid. (It's no surprise that Microsoft makes more
    | >
    | > money every year, despite losing market share and taking
    | >
    | > a loss on everything but Windows and MS Office. [Though
    | >
    | > X-Box has made a bit lately.] Their Product Activation
    | >
    | > ensures that many Windows customers end up buying the
    | >
    | > same Windows license over and over again.)
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | > And Vista/7 may itself be dead-end, if Microsoft has their
    | >
    | > way. Windows 8 is basically Vista/7 with a Metro screen
    | >
    | > stuck on the Desktop. It's a Metro marketing device. Microsoft
    | >
    | > are risking the PC monopoly in an effort to "make a buck on
    | >
    | > everything you do" by providing a store and services, coming
    | >
    | > through the Metro GUI, on PCs, tablets and phones. They
    | >
    | > saw what Apple's getting away with and said, "I want that!"
    | >
    | > If they have success anything like Apple's (which they almost
    | >
    | > certainly won't) I don't think they'll care very much about
    | >
    | > PCs. If the money is made on services and rental software
    | >
    | > then the machine that accesses those can be cheap and
    | >
    | > limited.
    |
    | Isn;t that the same modle that Dell is aiming for.
    |

    I don't see the comparison there, but I may be uninformed
    about Dell's actions. As I understand it, the OEM PC makers
    basically try to put together stable systems, as cheaply as
    possible, and load them with ads and trialware to make extra
    money. They're selling a hardware product in a slim-margin
    market.

    Microsoft is traditionally in the business of software, or rather
    their business is monopoly maintenance with a sideline in software.
    Their entire business is built on the Windows / MS Office
    monopolies. They throw billions away on almost everything else
    they do.
    With Windows 8 they're trying to get into services. That
    trend actually dates back a long time: SaaS, cloud ... it's
    a longterm trend toward trying to charge for software usage
    rather than software, now that the software market is mature.
    Windows 8 is a very aggressive attempt to not only get more
    into services, but to convert Windows customers "by hook or
    by crook", into services customers. Reports say that one is
    encouraged to log on to Win8 with a Microsoft email address,
    while Metro displays big, bright buttons with active display.
    I can imagine that a lot of less experienced people are going
    to be led to believe that MS online services is simply what a
    computer does. They'll never even make an actual choice.

    In other words, MS wants to trick people into equating the
    Metro GUI -- on PCs, tablets and phones -- with online services.
    Remeber how AOL used to hide the Internet from people and
    keep them stuck in AOL services? This is the same idea, but
    now MS also owns the hardware, and the customers are almost
    all on highspeed connections.

    If Dell is doing something like that, I'm not aware of it. Though
    if you're a Mac user you may see the situation differently. Mac
    people tend to talk about "Wintel", regarding MS, Intel and the
    OEMs as one big conglomerate, because they're used to thinking
    of one company doing both the hardware and the OS. But Windows
    doesn't work that way. They're not "Wintel" machines. A PC isn't
    even a machine. It's just a collection of hardware in a box, sold
    by an OEM, sold by a custom builder, or built oneself. That box
    can then have Windows, Linux, or another OS put onto it.

    | >
    | > I've been disappointed with each successive version of
    | >
    | > Windows, and now with Win8/Metro I'm beginning to look
    | >
    | > at Linux (again), despite the fact that I actually love Windows
    | >
    | > and have a good deal of experience with Windows programming,
    | >
    | > scripting, config., etc. I guess the direction Microsoft is going
    | >
    | > might be something to keep in mind while looking at photo software.
    |
    |
    | So what do you think of the Apple OS ?
    |

    Not much you'd want to hear. I already posted some
    of my opinions. I'll leave it at that. People can make their
    own decisions. These kind of discussions tend to turn
    into long, heated, circular arguments with numerous people
    jumping in to shout "We're #1!", with no one really
    listening to anyone else.

    | > 2) I should be able to set up a usable, flexible, easy-to-
    | > understand firewall that can block outgoing.

    | why not let a 3rd party do that ?

    Last time I tried Linux there wasn't any
    outgoing block available. It's a different environment, where
    people aren't typically concerned with outgoing data but are
    rather focussed on attempted break-ins.

    But I don't understand what you mean by a third party.
    Do you mean that I should hire someone? I'm able
    to find decent firewall software for Windows. It's been available
    for a long time. There's no reason to hire someone. If I have
    to call a "geek squad" to set up an OS for me then by definition
    it's not a usable OS.

    | With so many others trying difertn things I'm pretty pleased I got a mac
    | since playing with PS 2.5.1 on a Mac LC II I think.
    |

    Lots of people are happy with Macs. They're very
    stable. I have a number of acquaintances who have
    switched from Windows specifically for the perceived
    security advantage. (Though many of those are
    actually running Windows inside OSX. They want the
    software selection of Windows with the security and
    swank of a Mac.)
     
    Mayayana, Aug 14, 2012
  4. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    then all raw processors are editors.
    of course, but that's not the issue.

    that's baseline functionality common to *every* raw processing engine.

    what matters is what happens after that, unless of course, you're happy
    with the default raw conversion, and if so, why even bother with a raw
    processor?

    the key is that with camera raw and a non-destructive workflow, you can
    make changes at any time to things like white balance *after* you've
    cropped and removed spots. there is no particular sequence. you can do
    things in any order you want. that's a lot of flexibility that is very
    powerful.

    you can't do that in ufraw. once you're done, you're done. it's a fixed
    sequence.

    btw, your signature is just two dashes, not two dashes followed by a
    space, so it's not detected as a signature and included in the reply.

    please fix it.

    <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3676#page-9>

    There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also
    commonly appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator
    line between the body and the signature of a message.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  5. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    camera raw is part of lightroom, so you get raw processing and editing
    together, all in the same app. on which side of the fence a particular
    function falls makes no difference to the user. what matters is that a
    user can view a raw image and modify it, then go back to that image
    months later and modify it again, without any loss. everything is
    non-destructive.

    it's a little different for photoshop since camera raw opens in its own
    window and you can't use any of photoshop's functionality until you are
    done with camera raw, however, if you make a smart object, the result
    is non-destructive and you can go back to camera raw long after you've
    made other changes in photoshop, including compositing with other
    photos in multiple layers.

    at the end of the day, you can make any modification in any order you
    want. there is no fixed sequence, as floyd has claimed. you can white
    balance first and then crop, or you can crop and then white balance. it
    does not matter. either way works and the results are the same.
    camera raw by itself doesn't do anything.

    it needs a host app, such as lightroom or photoshop.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  6. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    the metadata does not have to be written to the nef file. normally,
    it's kept in a sidecar file or in the lightroom database.
    actually, he doesn't redo the conversion. he modifies the one he
    already made.
    actually, his way is faster, and it also probably uses *more* disk
    space than you do since lightroom caches quite a bit for speed.
    the metadata does not have to be written to the nef file. normally,
    it's kept in a sidecar file or in the lightroom database.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  7. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    it is not a preview image. everything displayed by camera raw is from
    the original raw data rendered on the fly to the display. there is no
    redoing of the conversion.
    he's incorrect on that point. there is no 'little preview window'. what
    is displayed is the real thing, rendered on the fly, and it's fast and
    accurate.
    there isn't any waiting nor is there a 'last conversion.'
    nope. that's much worse.
    it's not like that at all.
    says the person who has never used camera raw. you are guessing how
    camera raw works, and guessing wrong.
    some do, some don't.

    camera raw, the topic of this discussion does not.

    see above about guessing wrong.
    given that it's faster, what's to understand?
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  8. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    camera raw renders the raw data on the fly based on what adjustments
    have been made. it is *always* from the original raw data.

    there is no jpeg unless you save a jpeg from photoshop or export one
    from lightroom.
    then you aren't in a position to comment on how it works.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  9. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    this is why microsoft is in trouble. windows/office is not going to
    last forever and when that happens, they're screwed.

    it's sort of like kodak, who knew film wouldn't last forever and didn't
    quite transition to digital particularly well.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  10. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | > | That MAY not be a problem.
    | >
    | > It is. I tried the D3200 NEFs in AfterShotPro and it wouldn't
    | > open them, even though it lists D3100 as a supported model.
    | > I wouldn't be surprised if I could just edit a flag value in the
    | > header.... but I'm not inclined to get into trying that.
    |
    | you can't.
    |
    | the d3200 has a 24 mp sensor and the d3100 has a 14 mp sensor. it won't
    | work.
    |

    That's good to know. I was just reading Floyd's explanation
    of the format, too, which helps to clarify things a bit. I find
    that with UFRaw there is a line down the right side, as Floyd
    described, so it seems that UFRaw is not entirely accurate
    in its rendition, either. RawTherapee does seem to be accurate.

    | > I also
    | > tried the Adobe DNG converter. It wouldn't open that, either.
    | > Apparently no one is cooperating with Adobe on DNG.
    |
    | did you use it with camera raw 7.1?
    |

    Yes, but perhaps that's not be the issue. AfterShotPro
    lists DNG in the file types it will open, but a review I
    read says that ASP doesn't *really* have DNG support:

    "Unfortunately, there's no generic support for DNG files. There's only
    support for specific models. For example, the RAW files from the Sigma DP1s
    and DP2s cameras are not supported, despite the fact that DNG is supposed to
    be a universal RAW format."

    http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=4945

    That seems odd. There's not much point in converting to a
    generic standard if the file is still seen as a D3200.
     
    Mayayana, Aug 14, 2012
  11. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | >| why not let a 3rd party do that ?

    | > But I don't understand what you mean by a third party.
    |
    | He means something not acquired as part of your OS.
    |

    Maybe. I thought that was assumed. I don't expect
    the Linux OS to provide everything needed. But before
    I'd use it I'd want good software in certain categories,
    with intuitive GUIs that don't require me to go back to
    1985 by opening a console window, or ferreting out
    config files in the etc folder. To my mind, one of the
    functions of software is to take care of those functions.

    That problem is not the fault of Linux, but it is the
    result of a popular Linux "greasemonkey" attitude, that
    was exemplified by your earlier comment that "if I can't
    set up a firewall easily it's my fault". In Windows software
    development the attitude is the opposite: If the program
    is not intuitive it's a poor design. That difference is why
    Linux isn't on the Desktop.
     
    Mayayana, Aug 14, 2012
  12. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    not if you want a usable result, you can't.
    most is not all. it might be close, or it might not be.

    unless you know what the differences are, you can't be sure how good or
    bad the results are.
    that's quite a bit more than patching or renaming the raw file to fake
    the raw converter into thinking it's a camera it knows about.

    you are basically updating the raw converter, just as adobe and others
    do.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  13. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    that's a possibility. some dng engines want underlying native support
    for a particular camera even though it's dng, while others do not.
    i'm not sure why they even mentioned sigma when talking about dng.

    sigma cameras use a different sensor than other cameras (foveon) and
    its raw files are very, very different. dng does not support it at all.

    the reason why sigma raw files are not supported is because they've
    been encrypting their raw files for several years. that's why there
    wasn't third party support for some sigma cameras until just recently
    when the encryption was cracked, not even from dcraw. maybe a later
    version of aftershot will support them, not that it matters since
    almost nobody uses sigma cameras anyway.

    it has nothing whatsoever to do with dng.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2012
  14. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | >
    | > That's good to know. I was just reading Floyd's explanation
    | >of the format, too, which helps to clarify things a bit. I find
    | >that with UFRaw there is a line down the right side, as Floyd
    | >described, so it seems that UFRaw is not entirely accurate
    | >in its rendition, either. RawTherapee does seem to be accurate.
    |
    | You have a version of UFRAW that predates the D3200.
    |

    Yes. The Windows version is 6 months old.
     
    Mayayana, Aug 14, 2012
  15. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | Obviously though, UFRAW does exactly what nospam says it can't do,
    | so keep that in mind when reading what he says on this (and other)
    | topics.

    I think I'll stay out of that battle. From what I can
    see you and nospam have a lot in common. You both
    have notable expertise with digital photography. You
    both share your expertise generously. You both think
    the other is wrong almost 100% of the time. And you
    will both rebut anyone who disagrees with you " 'til
    the cows come home". :)
     
    Mayayana, Aug 14, 2012
  16. Mayayana

    PeterN Guest

    They must have been home for quite some time.

    <http://www.freshdv.com/2010/03/canon-eos-for-video-update.html>
     
    PeterN, Aug 14, 2012
  17. Mayayana

    Rob Guest


    http://www.diyphotography.net/32-free-software-solutions-for-photographers
     
    Rob, Aug 16, 2012
  18. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    it's not poorly written. it's *very* well written and i'm well informed
    about what it does.
    everything you do in camera raw is applied to the original raw data.
    there is no preview image. however, it does a *lot* of optimizations to
    increase speed and it's faster than ufraw.
    right, they aren't stupid. that's why it's so much better than many
    other raw processing engines.
    because you can't ever admit you're wrong? just a guess.
    nonsense. that's very inefficient.
    who said anything about pipes?

    you're talking out your ass.
    i'm not guessing at all.

    meanwhile you have not used it and *are* guessing.
    i've used the gimp & ufraw as well as adobe camera raw and a couple of
    others.
    camera raw is 'better' (subjective of course, but most people find it
    produces the best results of all raw converters) *and* it's faster.
     
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  19. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    not relevant, and your whole argument about how it *must* do raw
    processing first falls apart if you introduce jpeg.
    where did i say that's how i know what goes on internally?

    you're grasping at straws.
     
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  20. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    where did i say ufraw doesn't support a d3200?

    i didn't.

    not only can't you ever admit you're wrong but you resort to lying
    about what other people say. disgusting.
     
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
    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.