Want to use ufraw and gimp

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dmedhora, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. dmedhora

    dmedhora Guest

    Hi all

    I want to use ufraw in linux ( fedora core 4 ) to process my CRW
    images.

    I would like to use the stand-alone tool which I believe processes in
    16bit
    because ultimately I want to take good quality prints, though not
    bigger
    than 7x5. I also want to do things like exposure compensation, white
    balance
    etc...Now, I have the plugin, it installed ok, but I can't find the
    stand-alone
    for FC4

    Is the stand-alone tool better ( have more features ) than the plugin ?

    I read that if I install the plugin for gimp, then when I open
    file using the gimp, it first "hands it over" to ufraw - for me to make
    the changes
    I want ( Now here I assume that its kinda like a stand-alone already,
    right?
    or am I wrong?)

    can someone please tell me how I can get/install the standalone ufraw
    on FC4 ?

    Thanks very much
     
    dmedhora, Apr 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. dmedhora

    Dan Guest

    Hi,

    I haven't actually heard of UFRAW until you mentioned it but i just
    installed it and gave it a go. It seems very promising and already has
    most of the important features that your standard Photoshop RAW
    converter has.

    The only other tool for linux that i know of is Bibble Pro. That one is
    not free but it is one of the best RAW tools for Windows, Mac and Linux.

    Dan
     
    Dan, Apr 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. dmedhora

    Jim Townsend Guest

    I'm a die hard Linux user and a GIMP fan.. But.. I've used both
    for many years and I have to admit that ufraw and GIMP are barely
    adequate for processing RAW files.

    An outfit called Bibble makes a great RAW processing package, and
    the best part is they have a version that runs on Linux. It costs
    70 bucks for the 'light' version, but it's head and shoulders above
    GIMP with the ufraw plugin.

    It supports 16 bit processing (GIMP/ufraw doesn't) and it accepts
    color profiles. It has a host of top notch utilities built in,
    like Noise Ninja, PTL Lens Correction and One Touch correction.

    (I've tried all the GIMP de-noise plugins and none of them come
    close to Noise Ninja).

    Once I've got the image right using Bibble, I save as TIFF then
    switch to the GIMP for final touch-ups. Note that Bibble is
    most effective on RAW files.. I use GIMP only when processing
    JPEG images.

    I'm not affiliated with them.. I'm just an impressed user. It's
    great to see someone offering a quality editing package for
    Linux. There is a pro version for $130, but it doesn't give you
    a lot more.. It supports tethered shooting and has enhanced batch
    processing functions. I'm quite happy with the light version.

    Here's the link.. You can read about it and even download an evaluation
    copy to see if you like it.

    http://www.bibblelabs.com/
     
    Jim Townsend, Apr 27, 2006
    #3
  4. dmedhora

    Jim Townsend Guest

    If you read my other response, you'll see they also have Bibble Lite.

    It's half the price of the Pro version and great for RAW processing.
    The Light version has all the image editing functions of the Pro version.
    It only lacks tethered shooting and some batch processing functions. There
    isn't a big difference.

    I've run Linux as my full time desktop for 7 years now. Bibble is
    the only software I've actually paid for :) but I have to admit,
    if you want the best RAW processing you can do under Linux, it's
    worth it.
     
    Jim Townsend, Apr 27, 2006
    #4
  5. dmedhora

    dmedhora Guest

    Thanks for the info, I'll have a look at it.
    If its better than gimp + ufraw then it oughta be worth it.
     
    dmedhora, Apr 27, 2006
    #5
  6. dmedhora

    Paul Allen Guest

    Without appearing to make a claim about the superiority of one over
    the other, I would note that ufraw claims to do all of its processing
    in 16 bits and claims to support color profiles. Given that Linux
    has no driver-level support for color management, how do ufraw's
    16-bit and color profile capabilities compare with Bibble's?

    Inquiring minds, and all that...

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Apr 27, 2006
    #6
  7. dmedhora

    Dan Guest

    I posted before you did so i couldn't have possibly seen what you said.
    Yes Bibble Lite is just fine too.
     
    Dan, Apr 27, 2006
    #7
  8. dmedhora

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Yes, true.. The weak spot for color profiling in Linux is X not
    the software itself.

    Also I see you can save as 16 bit in ufraw.. For 16 bit editing, I
    was referring to GIMP which absolutely can't do 16 bit.. Looking closer
    it appears the ufraw plugin launches and runs outside GIMP in which case
    it can support 16 bit.

    Still. There are more features in Bibble. The recent incorporation of
    the Noise Ninja algorithm was good enough reason for me to choose
    pay-for Bibble over free ufraw :)
     
    Jim Townsend, Apr 27, 2006
    #8
  9. Just out of curiosity, what do you feel the weak points of
    ufraw/Gimp are and the strong points of Bibble are? I use ufraw/Gimp
    and AlbumShaper for some stuff that's going on the web. I tried Bibble
    Lite a while and remember not liking it very much, although it's been a
    while and I don't remember exactly what I disliked about it.
     
    Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner, Apr 27, 2006
    #9
  10. dmedhora

    Paul Allen Guest

    Yup. It seems like I heard recently that there was work going on to
    get CMS into X, the GIMP, or both.
    Yep. So you do the manipulations that would overflow 8-bit arithmetic
    in 16-bit mode and then dump into the GIMP for whatever's left. The
    GIMP needs to have the 48-bit color and CMS stuff from its offshoot
    CinePaint ported back.
    That's fine. I'm not criticizing Bibble, but rather trying to
    understand how comparable the features it shares with ufraw might
    be. I don't have a need for a RAW converter currently, but I hope to
    soon. I'll do my own evaluation when I have something to work with.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Apr 28, 2006
    #10
  11. dmedhora

    dmedhora Guest

    Yep. So you do the manipulations that would overflow 8-bit arithmetic
    So does that mean that you'd lose some information when dumping it
    into GIMP after the plugin does its things using 16 bit ?

    Thanks
     
    dmedhora, Apr 28, 2006
    #11
  12. dmedhora

    Paul Allen Guest

    Probably. The same thing would happen if you output directly to a
    high-quality JPEG. The point is to avoid 8-bit arithmetic as much
    as possible before going to your final form. At least, that's my
    understanding. Somebody will probably correct me if I'm totally
    wrong.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Apr 28, 2006
    #12
    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.