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

    Don't go by what they (you) say. Go by what they do.

    --- snip ---
    Eric Stevens, Apr 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Who would "they" be? And why not go by what you need...
    If "they" don't have the exact same needs, you are going
    to go with the flow... right over the dam.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    read it closer yourself. what he *didn't* use was the gimp.

    photoshop has deconvolution built-in, but if that isn't to your liking,
    there are plug-ins available that can do exactly what you want.
    no surprise there.

    in fact, usm and many other image processing functions are built into
    os x itself on both mac and ios. it's basically one line of code.
    nonsense. if you use it you'll know what it does or doesn't do and
    whether it's appropriate for the 'next image' or not. you can also
    choose to not use it at all.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  4. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    not only is he ignorant of what photoshop can and cannot do (any
    version, not just cs6) as well as what other apps are available on both
    platforms, but he's also very ignorant about mac and windows

    i can't help but notice that just about everyone who claims the gimp is
    great has never used anything else. it's all they know.

    on the other hand, those who actually have used both the gimp and other
    apps can readily see just how limited and clunky the gimp really is.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  5. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    Not at all.

    I'm saying that the OS' of choice are OS X and Windows and the core tool
    is Photoshop. And in the communities where they are used (professional
    photography and graphics arts) they are the expected base tools of the
    trade. Because of that, there is a lot more support. A lot more 3rd
    party software. A lot more knowledge.

    Linux would be okay for such if Adobe released Photoshop for Linux. But
    they don't. (It's very low use generally for desktop environments and
    bare existence amongst photographers doesn't make for a good investment).
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
  6. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    You're being trite and silly. If you're happy with the Gimp then be happy.

    You'll notice in my reply to the OP that I pointed out what I believed
    to be the issue. But, no, you latch on to criticism of the Gimp rather
    than help the OP. Really? If you're such a Gimp pro why didn't you
    help him rather than criticize my reply?

    The real issue is that Photoshop for all its evil corporate ownership
    and high price is a far better photography tool than the Gimp.

    If the Gimp were even 90% of what Photoshop CSx was, then droves of
    starving photographers and graphics artists and startup companies would
    leap to it.

    But they don't. 'Cause it isn't. And never will be.
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
  7. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    It seems that only Floyd has kept the original poster's question in
    mind. The poster didn't ask what OS or what software would be an
    improvement on what he has. He asked what can be done to work with
    what he has.

    Floyd - presumably - did a good job in answering this. I say
    "presumably" because I use neither Linux nor Gimp and don't know how
    practical Floyd's response was.

    It's too bad that questions like the original poster's get diverted
    into battles over OS and software with the same old points being
    rehashed over-and-over. Nothing new was brought up.

    You'd think some people have just discovered that Photoshop is a good
    program and feel compelled to tell the world about it.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 6, 2014
  8. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    I replied to the OP and I pointed out that the UFRaw settings that were
    displayed looked a bit off to me, and one in particular (WB) was
    suspicious. I told the OP to make some adjustments to get (closer) to a
    baseline position. Since I no longer have the Gimp (or Linux)
    installed, I didn't take it further to test the settings that he had.

    He did not reply to that - so I wonder:

    1) Were we trolled? (Again).

    2) Who's the troll? (And I have my suspicions).
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
  9. Neither GIMP nor Linux was a problem, and the problem he
    had would be exactly the same under Windows or OSX.
    We redirected practical discussion to a newsgroup where
    it would not be diverted.

    The OP is well on his way to learning various ways to
    use the software he asked about to get the results he
    needs. It did indeed turn out to be precisely what I
    suggested in regard to setting a default configuration
    for UFRAW. The OP has made two RAW files available and
    a couple of us are showing him techniques that work.
    'nuf said.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  10. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    I forgot to add:

    In reality many Photoshop users (myself included) despise Adobe and the
    high price of using it and we would love for the Gimp to displace it.

    However, the 'cost' of using the Gimp is far heavier than the cost of
    using Photoshop so we stick to Photoshop.

    And yes, we tell anyone using the Gimp that they are not using the tool
    of choice of most serious photographers. The tool with the most
    features, abilities, ease of use and the most support of various kinds
    including 3rd party plugins.

    The OP (assuming he's not a troll) came here for help and most here use
    Photoshop - so the replies given reflect the sad reality of Photoshop
    dominance. Akin to the even sadder dominance by Microsoft in OS and
    office apps.

    Sucks. But that's the way it is.
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
  11. I thought *you* were trolling! Your suggestion/comments
    were nonsense.
    Well, lets just look at what you said:

    '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."

    Set the channel multipliers to 1??? And also set the
    color temperature to about 5000K... How about wacky!

    His posted URL clearly showed the color temperature was
    set to 5054K, which seems close enough. But you don't
    seem to realize the color temperature is controlled by
    setting the channel multipliers. Setting them all to 1
    produces a very green image with a color temperature of
    4248K. (Essentially the same as a UniWB profile.)

    "(I notice for example that the WB setting is "0"
    in your examples."

    There is no other possible setting. That button doesn't allow
    a numerical entry, because it brings up the menu for preset
    White Balance configuration (Camera, Manual, Auto, Daylight, etc).

    "Not sure if that's a correct or useful WB value
    in The Gimp."

    It has nothing at all to do with GIMP.

    "Likewise your channel multiplier values @ 4 and 2
    in the 2nd/3rd examples may be quite a way off -
    or not)."

    The 2nd image is of blue sky, and the channel multipliers
    set a color temperature shown as 16,811K. That may or may
    not be way off, depending on what one wants the sky to look
    like. The 3rd image has a color temperature of 6148K, as is
    also clearly shown. Both seem reasonable enough...

    "All that said, when you're serious about
    photography and raw you should seriously get away
    from Linux and The Gimp."

    Or better would be to understand image editing.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  12. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    What I get tired of is that if the word "Gimp" appears in a post, it's
    like Pavlov's bell goes off. What will follow is "gimp doesn't have
    layers", "nondestructive editing", "old school" and the like. (no
    caps intentional)

    Who's under the impression that all of this is not already known by
    anyone who's using either program? It's not news.

    As for the OP being a troll, why would anyone come back to the group
    if the original question has been answered, and then the thread
    deteriorates into a Gimp vs Photoshop battle of the witless?
    Tony Cooper, Apr 6, 2014
  13. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    the goal is to get the task done in the most efficient way possible.

    that might mean trying something new or it might not. the gimp is not
    the only solution out there. far from it. have an open mind, for a

    if the gimp can do it, that's great, but if something else can do a
    better job, more easily and/or with less hassle, that's even better.
    they did that 20 years ago.

    today, everyone knows photoshop is excellent and the standard to which
    everything else is compared.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  14. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest


    that is absolutely, without question, completely and utterly false.

    the more you comment on photoshop, mac and windows, the more clear it
    is you know absolutely nothing about any of them.
    and uninterested in other options that might be easier and/or better.

    that's too bad for him (and others in a similar situation).
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  15. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    very true, and with photoshop elements being around $50, it's actually
    cheaper than dealing with the gimp when you consider the time and
    effort spent. elements is faster, easier to use and does substantially
    more than the gimp (including older versions which can be had for even
    less money).

    there's a reason why photoshop is the dominant tool, because it has
    earned it.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  16. Of course since you haven't got a clue what his problem was, your
    comments are nonsense. Nothing new at all there either...
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
  17. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    ad hominem and also wrong.

    standard response from you though.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  18. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes, we know all of that. You've posted this so many times that you
    might as well set up a macro for it. You aren't informing anyone of
    anything new. It's just a thread extender.

    It's not like anyone has ever come back and said "Gee! I didn't know
    that. I'll order some version of Photoshop immediately. Thanks for
    letting me know."
    Tony Cooper, Apr 6, 2014
  19. Jeffery Small

    Alan Browne Guest

    This is foremost a newsgroup forum, so all bets are off wrt what will
    happen. Next it's a photography forum where the majority of us are
    Photoshop slaves. Nonetheless far better off as kept by Adobe than
    wandering the wilds, cold and alone with Gimp.
    When someone comes here with something as lame as the Gimp's UFRaw
    settings, then alternates are always up for suggestion.
    I'll let your considerable abilities at analysis guide you.
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
  20. Jeffery Small

    Bob Guest

    Of course Gimp isn't equal to Photoshop etc. There are lots
    of things Photoshop does that Gimp doesn't do. There are
    however, things Gimp does that Photoshop doesn't. The vast bulk
    of things a person needs to do though can be done with either.

    [ Oh, and BTW, many, if not most Gimp users have used Photoshop.
    So you may want to make up another 'fact' to explain why there
    are many, many happy and success Gimp users. ]

    Bob, 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.