Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' 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. 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.

    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, Apr 5, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    I've kicked The Gimp off my system, but back when it was loaded I had no
    issues loading raw files via UFRaw. (Sony a900). (Actually at some
    point I had other issues with UFraw running at all - but fixed after
    some fanagling - don't recall if that was under Linux or OS X).

    The default (or however you have them) UFRaw settings might not be
    "nominal" - so go over them one by one and attempt to find if any are
    really way off. Set the channel multipliers to 1 (to begin),
    temperature to 5000K (more or less) and so on. It may just be your
    defaults are too wacky.

    (I notice for example that the WB setting is "0" in your examples. Not
    sure if that's a correct or useful WB value in The Gimp. Likewise your
    channel multiplier values @ 4 and 2 in the 2nd/3rd examples may be quite
    a way off - or not).

    All that said, when you're serious about photography and raw you should
    seriously get away from Linux and The Gimp.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 5, 2014
    #3
  4. That is certainly one alternative. But perhaps not the
    best. Learning how to use Linux and GIMP might not be
    possible for some people, but it can be a superior
    choice for others.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 5, 2014
    #4
  5. 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
    #5
  6. Jeffery Small

    Bob Guest

    Why would you write this?

    Bob
     
    Bob, Apr 6, 2014
    #6
  7. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Alternatively, he could have obtained the same benefits by using DxO.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 6, 2014
    #7
  8. Jeffery Small

    Bob Guest

    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?

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

    Alan Browne Guest

    Short answer: it's the truth and perhaps helpful to the OP (if not in
    the short term). Don't exclude the rest of the answer I gave him that
    may also be of use to him.

    Long answer:

    I know an awful lot of photographers.

    I know an awful lot of professional graphics artists.

    I know an awful lot of computer programmers / computer "geeks".

    I'm very experienced with many OS' (that predate Windows and OS X and
    even Unix by a pretty long period). I'm very proficient in Windows
    (well, perhaps less so these days) and OS X. I was moderately
    proficient in Linux (of course I'm talking about maintaining systems,
    command line use, etc.)

    On a Venn diagram, there some is overlap between these worlds. And in
    the world of photography the overwhelming choices of OS's are Windows
    and OS X.

    In the professional photography domain it's roughly an even split
    between Windows and OS X.

    In the professional graphics domain it's heavily weighted to OS X.
    About 80 - 90%.

    And absolutely NOWHERE (in my experience) are there professional (or
    even advanced "amateurs") in photography that use Linux or The Gimp.

    It's just not a common, useful platform because it is not supported by
    the professional apps makers. Professionals in these domains don't geek
    out over freeware and the "free software" movement; they get and pay for
    the best applications available - and the best "plugins" and add ons and
    extensions (what have you) for those applications. Don't forget that
    these people have to communicate (photogs, editors, designers, writers,
    printers ... the whole lot) ... the common exchanges are those files
    created by the apps used by these companies and agencies. Linux may be
    in their servers, but not on their desktops.

    That is not to say that Linux/Gimp and other applications in the domain
    cannot be used (or are not used), they are just rare in the professional
    domains of photography and graphics.

    So Linux/The Gimp is just not a good place to be if one is serious about
    photography over being a computer geek/programmer.

    As to Linux, its desktop environments (yes there are several) are
    mediocre as desktop systems compared to OS X. They're probably mediocre
    compared to Windows 7 (with which I have little experience but I beleive
    to be one of the few that MS "got right").

    I had hope of Linux being the Great One - and in those days I spit when
    anyone mentioned Apple and MacIntosh and OS X.

    But, when a) I found Linux to be all but useless as an "office" and
    photography platform and b) MS released Vista and c) I needed a new
    computer ... I abandoned all hope and bought an iMac.

    My Motto has been, since then in early 2008: "OS X: What Linux wants to
    be when it grows up."


    [1]: Linux' strengths are in servers, database systems, embedded
    systems, super-computing and other specific, somewhat narrowly scoped
    areas.

    Not desktop.

    Sorry for the long reply, I didn't have time to compose a short one.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
    #9
  10. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    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).
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
    #10
  11. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    he wrote it because it's true.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #11
  12. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    neither.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #12
  13. 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
    #13
  14. Jeffery Small

    Bob Guest

    So you're both saying that it's not possibile to produce
    good photos using Linux and Gimp?

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

    Bob Guest

    And so does that make those of us that don't have
    the problems with Gimp that you do dumber?

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

    Bob Guest

    So then you are saying GIMP *can* be used efficiently with
    good results?

    Bob
     
    Bob, Apr 6, 2014
    #16
  17. 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
    #17
  18. Jeffery Small

    Savageduck Guest

    Not efficiently, using it is a royal PIA, and other software available
    for Windows and OSX is superior in all ways. 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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 6, 2014
    #18
  19. 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
    #19
  20. 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
    #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.