Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Jeffery Small, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    That applies to most ordinary situations.
    Eric Stevens, Apr 19, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    i did in my previous post and quoted again in another post i just made.
    Guest, Apr 19, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest


    Some users are under the impression that Photoshop does all its
    conversions to and from LAB, converting on-the-fly. this is untrue as
    it would greatly slow down performance. Instead, Photoshop uses LAB
    as a reference when conducting many operations. Photoshop is not
    actually converting pixel data between color spaces unless you, the
    user, actually ask for this. None of these issues should be
    interpreted as implying that a conversion from working space to LAB
    is bad. Just be aware of the issues involved with this kind of
    conversion and whenever possible, try to use similar techniques that
    can be conducted in the RGB working space.

    in other words, if you convert to lab and back, there are two
    conversions that otherwise would not have been done.

    the conversions are also not lossless, something which is trivial to
    prove. make the conversion and subtract from the original. if they're
    identical, the result will be zero, which it definitely is not, and on
    an image i randomly picked, it's noticeable without subtracting.
    Guest, Apr 19, 2014
  4. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    Post before and after shots and the subtraction.

    Name each process step from start to finish.
    Alan Browne, Apr 19, 2014
  5. Jeffery Small

    Sandman Guest

    Exactly. And it's not a trick. It's a classic troll tactic to "summarize"
    someone elses compiled statements to mean something that person never
    actually said.
    You're basically confirming what I'm saying - the conclusion was made by
    the troll based on "diffuse verbiage" - i.e. a specific conclusion based on
    nothing specific.
    And also very objective, and the judge of whether or not nospam's methods
    were "ineffective" is none other than nospam. Sure, an onlooker may look at
    hhis method and bring numerous enhancements to his attention, but given the
    fact that the troll in this occasions has no knowledge about this earlier
    method, and how effective it was.

    What we have is a troll that makes guesses based on the one posting, and
    thus makes a conclusion and a claim about the poster being ineffective

    This is just another proof for Tony's agenda - Savageduck has *also* voiced
    pro-Lightroom opinions about how it has made his workflow better, yet Tony
    didn't respond to Savageduck and claim his earlier methods were
    Both points conclude that nospam's earlier workflow was "ineffective",
    "creaky" and "useless". There is no question or conclusion that postulates
    that the earlier workflow was very good and that the new one is even
    better, which is a perfectly valid option.
    Sandman, Apr 19, 2014
  6. Jeffery Small

    Sandman Guest

    But the troll offered up only two options, that it was either "creaky and
    useless" or that it was "ineffective".

    Plus - "ineffective" isn't as relative as you want it to be. It means that
    the method was NOT producing any significant or desired results. "Less
    effective" and "more effective" is relative. Not "ineffective".
    No, just less effective.
    So you agree with Tony that his workflow before Lightroom was either
    "creaky and useless" or "ineffective"
    Sandman, Apr 19, 2014
  7. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    There's a world of difference between the Duck's comments and
    nospam's. The Duck provides specific information and in-depth
    comments about how he uses LR. He posts results of what he does.

    nospam thinks *much better* is a specific.

    Sorry about the rain during your vacation. I hope you can find
    something to do inside. Maybe you could visit a few more of the
    Florida B&H locations.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 19, 2014
  8. Jeffery Small

    PeterN Guest

    The above was a waste of pixels.
    PeterN, Apr 19, 2014
  9. Jeffery Small

    PeterN Guest


    I used to sharpen on the luminescence layer in LAB, but since CC it has
    not been necessary, unless I want to deliberately oversharpen with
    minimal halos.
    I mostly use LAB for specific color effects that are not available in
    RGB without a lot of futzing.
    PeterN, Apr 19, 2014
  10. Jeffery Small

    Savageduck Guest

    Even if you are using Sharpen, USM, or Smart Sharpen in PS CS/CC it is
    best to sharpen on a separate final layer, (as a regular or smart
    filter) using the blending mode set to *Luminosity*. This limits the
    sharpening effect to just that without effecting any prior
    color/saturation/contrast adjustments, which can happen if you apply
    sharpening to a normal layer.
    Savageduck, Apr 19, 2014
  11. Jeffery Small

    Sandman Guest

    Ooops, now Tony will join the thread to point out that nospam used the word
    "also" to add another factor above his recommendation.

    No wait, he won't.
    Sandman, Apr 19, 2014
  12. Jeffery Small

    Sandman Guest

    Oh, really? Well, let's review. Here's nospam's comment:

    Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
    04/09/2014 <080420141821121992%>

    "i'm getting the same (or better) results in *far* less time
    with lightroom than i ever did with photoshop, and i can
    still use photoshop for the occasional images that need
    additional work. overall, it's a huge, huge productivity

    Very adult, to the point and no nonsense. let's see your reply:

    Tony Cooper
    Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
    04/09/2014 <>

    "So, you weren't very good with Photoshop. It's a program
    for grown-ups, so don't feel badly."

    Wow. There is a world of difference allright, but it's not found in the
    comments from nospam and Savageduck allright. Let's see what Savageduck had
    to say about Lightroom and its efficiency:

    Re: Yellow Cast in Lightroom 5 Develop Window
    04/17/2014 <[email protected]>

    "There is little which cannot be done in LR. I find that
    these days I only move to Photoshop from LR5 if I have
    compositing work, or content aware healing, cloning,
    patching or third party plugin work which cannot be achieved
    in LR alone. More and more my usual workflow is pure LR with
    fewer excursions into PS."

    And the reply from you? None, not a comment about Savageduck not being able
    to use Photoshop since it's a program for adults. Huh.

    See - this is where an adult would go "Uh, yeah, you're right, I was out of
    line responding with insults to a perfectly valid comment from nospam and
    it is a bit obvious that I treat him differently than others"

    Which is why you'll probably snip all this away and pretend I didn't
    substantiate your agenda... once again.
    Well, good for him! That doesn't mean their opinion and remarks about the
    programs are "worlds apart", Tony.
    When did he claim that he thinks "much better" is a specific? You just made
    a claim about what another poster thinks without substantiation.

    Some people have credibility, and when that poster says that he thinks X is
    better than Y, one can assume he has tested both and made that conclusion.
    The troll thing to do is to claim that Y is for adults and that the poster
    didn't understand it.
    Sandman, Apr 19, 2014
  13. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    The Duck has posted examples of his endeavors with Photoshop. We know
    he has adult skills.
    You substantiated my agenda? In other words, you proved that my
    alleged agenda is correct? If I had one it would reassuring to know
    that you think it's correct.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 19, 2014
  14. Jeffery Small

    Sandman Guest

    I see you - as I predicted - snipped the examples of you responding
    inflammatory to nospam and not at all to Savageduck, in spite of both
    having matched opinions about a product.

    And the mere fact that you point to your lack of knowledge about nospam's
    proficiency in the product as a justification for saying that he isn't
    adult enough to use it. Wow, that's just insanly immature of you.
    No, I substantiated its existence.
    Semantic word games - classic last resort for a troll.
    Sandman, Apr 19, 2014
  15. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Tony Cooper, Apr 20, 2014
  16. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I think it was nospam who first caught mt attention by some time ago
    saying that all color spaces are converted to Lab mode in their
    passage through Photoshop. Elsewhere I have seen mentions that the
    Adobe color engine works in Lab mode. I have just now gone hunting
    through Google and found all sorts of woolly references including
    references to the use of CIE XYZ or it's derivatives such as Lab.

    I've looked through various books and found a definite statement in
    "Fine Art Printing for Photographers" by Uwe Steinmuller and Juergen

    Begin quote:
    A color management system (CMS) is a set of program modules that
    mediate color translation among different devices. These modules are
    often part of a computers operating system, and also are usually
    provided by software companies (e.g., Adobe). If an application is
    used to display, edit or print a color image, it initiates the proper
    function(s), e.g., displaying a particular image, generates the
    correct ICC profile information, and then tells the CMS what function
    should be performed. The central part of the CMS is a color management
    module," which performs the calculations needed to translate
    (transform) a color from color space A to color space B. Here's how it

    i. First, the CMM translates the device- dependent color values of the
    image to a device-independent color space, using the description of
    the source ICC profile. Now the color values of the image are in Lab
    color space, which is device-independent. This intermediate space is
    called transfer color space or profile connection space (PCS).

    2. Next, these Lab values are translated to color values that will
    produce a color on the output device that is as close to the original
    color impression as possible. If the output device cannot produce the
    very same color, the CMM will try to find the closest match. Finding
    the best match is determined by the translation intent (explained in
    section 3.4 at page 62), also called rendering intent.
    End quote.

    They are quite definite in stating that the Adobe CMS uses Lab space
    for colour. is
    the diagram included with that section of the text.

    I don't know but I suspect that the various modes made available by
    Adobe to the user only affect the various controls, filters, tools etc
    made available to the user. In the end they all work on the profile
    connection space.

    If my understanding is correct then it doesn't matter what mode you
    choose to work in: your image comes in and is converted to Lab. When
    the image goes out it has to be converted to RGB, CMYK or what ever it
    is you want. Your choice of mode only affects the various tools etc
    with which you manipulate the data in the CMM. If that is the case the
    idea is incorrect that working in Lab mode requires twice as many
    conversions as working in other colour modes.
    Eric Stevens, Apr 20, 2014
  17. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    It's good at getting rid of haze too.
    Eric Stevens, Apr 20, 2014
  18. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    It's also a troll trick to ask for a cite for a direct quote of what
    that person never actually said.
    Do you really mean that you think that nospam used all those words to
    no effect whatever? Certainly he conveyed a meaning which could be
    extracted from what he had said.
    That's why Tony gave nospam the opportunity to say 'yes' or 'no'.
    That's good! That's two distortions of what actually happened in the
    one sentence.
    Even though, relatively speaking, they were.
    Then nospam has the opportunity to say 'no' to both postulates. But
    you didn't wait for that: you immediately assumed the worst and
    attacked Tony on that basis.
    Eric Stevens, Apr 20, 2014
  19. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    So all that has to be done is to say that 'ineffective' does not
    How on earth can you reach that conclusion?
    Eric Stevens, Apr 20, 2014
  20. Jeffery Small

    android Guest

    android, Apr 20, 2014
    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.