Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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

  1. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    definitely not.

    not only is the gimp not at all efficient in what it does do, but it
    can't do a lot of things that other software has been doing for *years*
    and given its road map, it won't ever be doing.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    it should, but many times it can't because that information is

    what a lot of software does is apply its own defaults to give you
    something usable, and then you can take it from there.
    lightroom can apply adjustments to as many photos as you want as well
    as saving them as a preset.

    if you have to spend so much time to get it to work, then it is broken.

    good software 'just works'.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. What he says has zero significance. The fact is he
    can't use it effectively, and others can.

    At a lower level it is probably quite true that other
    software is easier to learn, up to a level that is
    sufficient for those who merely want to be "sufficient".

    If you want perfection and work at the extreme ends,
    things become a lot different. Linux allows a great
    deal of flexibility that simply cannot be accomplished
    with any ease using Windows. A Mac is inbetween.

    GIMP is just fine, for a perfectionist. It's holy
    terror for those who only need to skim the surface.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  4. Tell us about how great it is to have only a choice
    between "bicubic sharper" and "bicubic smoother" for
    filters when resampling an image either down for the web
    or up for printing!
    You can't get sharpening quit right using Photoshop.

    But with GIMP it is possible to combine, in proportions
    of the users choice, Wavelet sharpening, High Pass
    sharpening, Unsharp Mask, and Richardson-Lucy
    Deconvolutional sharpening.

    Photoshop is fine if you are willing to settle for "good
    enough", but if you know the difference you'll get
    between *proper* application of USM, HP sharpen and RL
    sharpen there is no comparison.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  5. Which is true... for them. I'm not sure they can do
    that with any software though.

    But I'm very positive that Linux and GIMP provide both a
    flexible platform and the functionality necessary to do
    professional work with photography.

    I don't do cinematography, but that has also been done
    with Linux.

    The main point is that it doesn't do exactly the same
    things that they are used to with Windows or a Mac.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  6. I suppose for people who lack certain abilities and do
    not have critical needs, that might appear to be true.

    Windows and OSX are probably vastly superior for
    producing run of the mill snapshots for Grandma's family
    album or to post on Facebook.

    For those who have higher aspirations there are
    alternatives that are better.
    How about those who only think about the results, and
    are able to get better results using Linux and GIMP...

    I don't do astrophotography, as an example, but see
    where many of those who do use Linux and associated
    tools. And others don't.
    GIMP is not the same as "Photoshop CS6/CC, PSE, or
    lightroom" for you, but the alternate view is that you
    simply don't seem able to use GIMP, even when it would
    do a better job. Who exactly has the problem? You or
    the program that others can use to do what you can't?
    So you make your decisions according to what you see as
    the most popular? Everyone that lacks any idea of what
    an image editor should do buys this, so you too buy

    I buy what will best produce the results I need.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  7. If you have 1000 images to process it makes great sense!
    If you only do 20 images, it really is better. If you
    do 1 or 10 it doesn't make a lot of difference.

    Also it's a matter of whether you adjust your selection
    of keepers to match the processing defaults, or whether
    you adjust the configuration to match your photographs.
    To do the former it is much easier to simply set the
    camera to shoot JPEG... and if you shoot RAW it is a
    waste of time to bother with the camera's JPEG
    Sounds good on the surface, but really isn't important
    at all. I shoot RAW, and could care less what the
    camera configuration is simply because I have no need to
    take the time to reconfigure the camera's JPEG
    configuration, using guesses that cannot ever by precise
    enough and will eventually be discarded anyway.

    But there is also the problem of knowing exactly what
    the camera settings are. Only the manufacturer really
    knows, as nobody else can look at their software. (No
    it is not encryption as some claim.) The camera has
    many adjustments, and keeps track of them with nice
    incremental numbers, say from -10 to +10 for hue,
    sharpness, etc etc. But exactly what does the software
    do when it is set to sharpness of 5 and hue of -4?

    But who cares anyway, because the setting on the camera
    is a guess that must be preset, and has very course
    granularity. Post processing allows configuration by
    inspection, and with much finer granularity.
    Exactly. If nothing changed from one image to the next,
    press the "save" button and go to the next. If you save
    only the ID file in UFRAW that takes a fraction of a
    second. A person can whip through hundreds of images
    fairly fast. Lots of times out of say 400 shots there
    will be only about 3 or 4 different configurations
    needed for 380 of the shots, and then maybe 20 or so
    that are totally individual. That means changing
    configuration only 24 times rather than having to do it
    400 times. Huge efficiency advantage.

    Also, saving only the ID file while working
    interactively means that you can go from one image to
    the next in an instant. If each image is interpolated
    and saved as you go it takes a huge amount of your time,
    while you sit and wait for it to finish. With only an
    ID file saved, the time intensive interpolation is done
    as a batch process while you do other things. Again, a
    huge efficiency advantage.
    It takes time to catch the significance of many of it's
    features. One of the primary advantages of the way much
    of the Linux software is designed is because it is well
    thought out for an advanced user, but that makes the
    learning curve steeper too. Much of the "advantage"
    claimed for Windows and Mac users is because software
    can be designed to make it easier for a new user. That
    is wonderful while you are a new user, without critical
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  8. Jeffery Small

    Savageduck Guest

    What are these *certain abilities* and *critical needs* folks who do
    not choose to use Linux lack?
    Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good
    job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They
    also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill*
    snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game.
    You seem to be taking a somewhat lofty and condescending perch there Floyd.
    Better results? Better results than what?
    Neither do I.
    That's nice.
    Correct. It is lacking when compared with PS CS6.CC an LR5.
    I can, and have used GIMP. As to doing a better job I disagree.
    Why is it a problem? I don't usually use GIMP, so no problem.
    What is it that I am not supposed to be able to do?
    No. I make my decisions based on what does the job for me in the most
    efficient manner.
    Actually that is what I do. It seems that when it comes to image
    editing software, given the MSRP of GIMP you don't actually buy
    anything other than very good cameras & glass.
    You capture decent enough images and your GIMP workflow works for you,
    but your GIMP/Linux advocacy where you denigrate all who disagree with
    your choices does nothing to advance your cause. None of the examples
    of your work which we have seen presents an argument for the
    superiority of GIMP over any other software. Your sense of superiority
    over others of us in these photo NGs is misplaced.
    Savageduck, Apr 6, 2014
  9. What needs to be added is that it is only true for those
    who are unable or unwilling (as in having no reason) to
    become expert in its use.

    For an expert user with critical needs Linux is far
    better, and GIMP is the equal of anything. The biggest
    difference is that with Linux and GIMP you have to know
    what you want the software to produce. With most other
    software there has been significant effort put into
    showing a user how to produce "satisfactory results"
    (which is just annoying cruft for an expert).

    With some software you have a slider for "sharpness",
    and by looking at the image it can be adjusted to get a
    "sharper" image. Wow! It looks better than it did, and
    that's wonderful. But you have no idea what it did, or
    if something else could be better. With GIMP you have
    to know which type of a sharpen process will produce the
    results that you want. What you get isn't just "It
    looks better than it did". It looks the way you want it
    to. That's creativity in practice, as opposed to throwing
    paint balls at canvas to creat art.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  10. Customized workflow is just the start.

    I can't imagine taking the time necessary to properly process images on
    Windows or OSX. (In the way I want them processed, not the way others
    do or you do.)
    As for example using Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper to filter
    resampling algorithms? :)
    Compared to what you've posted???? Get real.
    Than they can using other software.
    It lacks what *you* can understand and use. That's a
    personal problem, eh?
    But you can't figure out how to use it effectively...

    A problem that others don't have.
    One would think you would be able to ascertain where the
    problem is and avoid petty bias in discussing this
    topic. If you don't want to use GIMP that is fine, but
    not when you say that because you are unable to use it
    effectively means others should avoid it despite the
    fact that it clearly can be very effectively used and is
    extremely efficient for those who do.
    And blame your personal limitations on others.
    You might, but when you advise others that is not what
    you say.
    Oh? In fact it is more. You buy into a system that
    requires a great deal of learning, no matter which it
    is. It may also, if you do have a need for the
    effectiveness described, need hardware that matches.
    There's no free lunch.
    I don't care if you find another program better for your
    uses. I'm not saying that other programs are useless,
    ineffective, and all the other trash talk that *you*
    heap on choices other than your own.

    I'm not the one dumping on other's choices...

    I am dumping on your habit of trash talking anything
    you can't or don't use.
    I don't recall dumping on your work, or suggesting mine
    is superior to anyones. Seems you have a real problem
    with justifying yourself as an individual.

    But it is true that I don't mind at all if my own
    photography is used as an example of what can be done
    with Linux and GIMP. Whatever it may or may not be, it
    certainly isn't non-existant which your claims suggest!
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  11. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    not as effectively or as efficiently as with other software.
    other software is not only easier to learn but users are more
    productive and can produce far better results in less time.

    that makes the gimp 'sufficient' and other software 'powerful'.

    whatever you can do in the gimp can be done in less time on a mac or
    windows system using any of a wider variety of software.

    linux users don't have any of those options. they're stuck with the
    gimp. it's all they know.
    more nonsense.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  12. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    tell us how great it is to not have adjustment layers, non-destructive
    workflow and the inability to use a wealth of plug-ins that can do
    whatever you want, for starters.
    nothing about photoshop prevents that.
    more nonsense.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  13. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    yet so few professionals use linux and the gimp, so obviously it lacks
    what actual professionals demand. in other words, you're wrong.
    in a render farm, not as a desktop system.

    movies are almost always made with final cut and/or avid and then
    offloaded to a render farm, whose system makes no difference whatsoever
    to the user.
    that's the whole point. the gimp is so far behind the curve it's not
    even funny.

    the gimp still lacks adjustment layers, which photoshop had *twenty*
    years ago.

    the gimp also doesn't support a non-destructive workflow and doesn't
    appear to be getting it any time soon.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  14. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    they're vastly superior for producing any type of photo, from snapshots
    to major ad campaigns, catalogues, formal portraits or whatever else.
    yet those with higher aspirations almost always choose mac or windows.
    says the person who has never used adobe products, so how do you even
    know?? you don't.

    those of us who *have* used both can see just how ludicrous that
    statement is.
    why cite an example you don't use?
    a better job at what?

    you haven't used photoshop so you don't know what it does or doesn't do
    the problem is that the gimp is less capable than photoshop and other

    and a bigger problem is that you think that using the gimp is some sort
    of achievement that lesser folks are incapable of.
    most people don't buy photoshop or lightroom because it's popular. they
    buy it because they're two of the best, if not the best, of what's
    pros buy just about any app or hardware they want, and they
    consistently choose products *other* than linux and the gimp.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  15. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest


    mac/win software is designed for users of all levels.

    it offers easy ways for a newbie to get started and get useful results,
    while also offering the power and features that advanced users need.

    unlike linux software, it's not intentionally hard to use, mainly so
    that geeks can talk down to others, as you do.

    you've never used a mac or windows system more than casually and
    certainly haven't used any of the image processing software available,
    notably photoshop and lightroom, so you haven't any inkling of a clue
    what they can and cannot do. you are talking out your ass.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  16. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    Windows & OSX graphics and digital imaging software do a pretty good
    job of producing outstanding images for print, and other display. They
    also have the capability of producing those *run of the mill*
    snapshots. I wouldn't know about Facebook, I don't play that game.[/QUOTE]

    not only a pretty good job, but windows and os x are what pros choose
    when the absolute highest quality is not only desired, but *required*.

    you don't see ad agencies or commercial photographers fucking around
    with the gimp. it's almost always adobe photoshop and lightroom.
    it's all he can do when there's no facts behind his arguments.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  17. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest


    on the very same hardware and doing the same operations, the gimp is
    anywhere from a little slower to as much as an order of magnitude
    slower. the skill of the user is irrelevant. this can be measured with
    a stopwatch.

    and then there's the user interface, which for the gimp, is designed by
    geeks, not artists, so it's an obstacle for those who are artistically
    inclined. photoshop's interface was designed by the very artists who
    use it, which is why it's so efficient to use.

    if that were remotely true, the expert users would pick linux, and they
    don't. they mostly pick macs for graphic arts, photography, etc.
    more nonsense. the gimp is roughly ten years behind photoshop and still
    lacks some things that photoshop had 20 years ago.
    you have to know what you want with any software.

    if you think photoshop or any other software magically figures out what
    you want then you're dumber than i thought.

    quality apps are designed so that *everyone* can get good results,
    regardless of their skill level.

    newbies can use the wizards and automatic features while the advanced
    users can dig as deep as they want and do whatever they want.

    the fact that you keep saying that photoshop is suitable for only
    'satisfactory results' or 'grandma's photos' shows just how ignorant
    you are about photoshop and what it can do.
    maybe you don't, but others know what it does and most of the time it
    doesn't actually matter. what matters is whether it looks the way the
    artist wants it to look and obtaining that result with minimal fuss.
    same with any other software.
    same with any other software.
    nobody is throwing paint balls at canvas, although that is considered
    to be art by some.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  18. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    that's not unique to the gimp, and other apps offer more options.
    of course not, because you are too closed minded to see any other
    option than the gimp.

    the fact that you think that other apps restricts the way you can
    process images shows just how little you know about the other apps.

    you can process images any way you want and more often than not, in
    less time and with less hassle than it would take with the gimp.

    actually, you are.
    that's quite a bit of hypocrisy, given that you freely admit you've
    never used adobe products, and you also made some fundamental errors
    about mac and windows systems a couple of months back too.

    you have *no* idea what they can and cannot do, yet you bash them and
    their users.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  19. Jeffery Small

    Savageduck Guest

    PS & LR workflow is quite customizable. It is scriptable, actions can
    be written, presets created, and more.
    I guess that is because you have never used either OS.
    You haven't checked on Photoshop lately have you?
    I don't claim to be a creator of great photographic art. However, what
    I produce I do with deliberation and thought to reach satisfying
    results. Not everything I share is perfect, sometime there are
    problems. Sometimes I find a solution to a particular problem, many
    times I don't, but I have no problem sharing those image to see if
    there is something I can learn from constructive criticism.
    So is there a particular image of mine which you can point to with
    particular distain?
    I have yet to see evidence of that, presented by you or any other GIMP acolyte.
    My understanding and ability use a particular piece of software is no
    problem at all.
    Once more your peculiar arrogant and condescending attitude towards
    those who don't kowtow to your way of thinking is obvious.
    Why would I need to once I have determined that I have software which
    does a better job for ME?
    Other Linux-GIMP users, not exactly a large sampling. The only
    non-Linux users using GIMP are those frugal folks mining the open
    source freeware well.
    I say I find GIMP lacking when it doesn't fit MY workflow. Obviously it
    is a perfect match for you.

    The reality is, while GIMP is a capable editor, it is not as good as
    you claim it to be when compared with digital imaging software
    available for Win or OSX. It is undoubtably the best you have available
    to run under Linux.
    So you are privy to my personal limitations are you? Damn! You must be
    an astute and perceptive reader of character.
    I made my buying choices after serious and deliberate consideration
    including taking a hard look at GIMP.
    You made yours based on what would fit your Linux model, without even
    running any of the Win or OSX software. You seem to be quite ignorant
    of the current capabilities and features of PS CS6/CC.
    Nice rationalization there.
    Like the trash talk you heap on non-Linux and non-GIMP users.
    The only one trash talking here is you. I can and have used GIMP, but I
    certainly don't use it now.
    No! Just check this thread, particularly a few lines above where you
    say; "Compared to what you've posted???? Get real."
    Not me. I know my limitations as a photographer, and my post processing
    skills, and yet I seem to be able to produce a few quite acceptable
    images, for both print and online sharing.
    Where did I claim that your work was "non-existant" (sic)?
    What I claimed is that nothing you have presented to us supports your
    argument that GIMP post processing is in anyway superior (as you claim)
    to any other software. What you have shown us is not in anyway
    extraordinary photographic art work. No better or worse than examples
    posted by some of the more competent and decently equipped shooters in
    this room.
    Savageduck, Apr 6, 2014
  20. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Clark Vision have published articles describing their tests with all
    these things using Photoshop. See for example
    Eric Stevens, Apr 6, 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.