Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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,

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Why would you write this?

Bob

 

Alternatively, he could have obtained the same benefits by using DxO.

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

he wrote it because it's true.

 

neither.

 

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.

 

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

Bob

 

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

Bob

 

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

Bob

 

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,

 

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.

 

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 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.