Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?

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

  1. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    according to *you*.
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. I've never owned a copy myself. I have never had it on
    a computer at home. I have never "used" it in the sense
    that it was my normal editor.

    Only you have ever said that I've never used it at all, in
    any way.

    And that is totally irrelevant anyway!

    If you don't know the difference between what happens when
    invoking a High Pass Sharpen as opposed to UnSharp Mask or
    Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional Sharpen or Wavelet Sharpen,
    and instead think that Smart Sharpen is easy and does what
    you need... maybe you just don't know what actually is
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 8, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    thanks for confirming it.
    not just me. you said it yourself again, just now.
    quite the opposite. it's very relevant.

    if you haven't used photoshop then you don't know what it can and
    cannot do.

    you might think you do, maybe from what you've read or heard from
    others, but each time you say something about it (or about mac or
    windows for that matter), it's clear you don't know.
    none of that is relevant.

    photoshop can do whatever a user wants and so can other apps.

    the difference is the user experience in doing whatever it is.
    photoshop will do it with less hassle and in less time (and i've
    measured this by running both, something you have not done).
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
  4. You're ability to analyze text is as poor as your
    understanding of photography.
    To you, alone.
    I've never laced my food with cyanide. Yet I do know
    what that can do... You should try it?

    But the fact is that yes I've used Photoshop, and using
    it is not how I know what it can do.
    That seems to be your stock response to anyone for
    everything if they are not a Mac or Windows user.
    Sometimes there is a point to that, but it is poor logic
    on it's face.
    Not true. The user can do whatever it allows. There is
    very little that it doesn't allow, but for those who
    have the needs and do understand the distinctions, what
    it doesn't allow is very significant.

    Can you resample an image to 4 times its original size
    using a Mitchell filter, rather than whatever it is that
    "Smoother" means in "Bicubic Smoother"? Does it make any
    difference to you?

    For that matter, when an image is resampled in PhotoShop
    is it first converted to unity gamma (i.e., 0.4545 as
    opposed to 2.2), or not?
    Again you claim to know what others can or have done...

    Photoshop can't do things I want done. That is true of
    GIMP also. Which is why I also use other editing tools.
    I'm more concerned about total compatibility than how
    well or even how fast any one program is for anyone
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 8, 2014
  5. Nobody said he used GIMP. But Eric said he used
    Photoshop, which was not even close to true.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 8, 2014
  6. But in the entire series you mentioned, he did *not* do
    what you said he did. And I don't know of any articles
    where Roger has done what you said, with photoshop.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 8, 2014
  7. Jeffery Small

    Savageduck Guest

    Unless you are not aware of, and thus blind to the current capabilities
    of Photoshop CS6/CC & ACR.
    Why is it you believe PS users don't know the difference between *High
    Pass Sharpening* & *USM*? Some of us simpletons have a fair idea of the
    concept. Adobe has its own labels and names for some complex functions
    to degeekify a few things for the non-geek post processing
    photographer, surprisingly there are more of those than the geek
    < >
    < >

    The sharpening options in PS are quite varied. You also seem to not
    understand just what *Smart Sharpening* actually is. What it isn't, is
    some simple one click, sharpen filter.
    *Smart Sharpening requires an understanding of the process and must be
    tweaked and adjusted for optimal effect, for total image, shadows, and
    highlights. It is a big improvement over USM and the simple one click
    Sharpen Filter.

    Then in ACR or the *Camera RAW Filter* you have the ability apply
    sharpening selectively with masking.
    < >

    Add to that the addition of the *Shake Reduction Sharpening* filter
    found in PS CS6/CC.
    < >
    Savageduck, Apr 8, 2014
  8. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    there is *nothing* that photoshop doesn't allow. photoshop supports
    numerous types of plug-ins so whatever it is you want to do can be
    added if it's not already there.

    the gimp also supports plug-ins, but since photoshop is far more
    popular than the gimp, developers will target it first. that makes
    photoshop more likely to have fewer limitations.

    it's possible that *some* photoshop plug-ins can work in the gimp but
    only a small subset and not always with full compatibility.

    and you keep ignoring the user experience. although many things can be
    done in both, it's easier and faster to do them in photoshop in most
    cases (there are always exceptions, usually obscure ones that don't
    matter much). that's why pros almost always choose to use photoshop.
    they don't have time to screw around.
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
  9. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    try reading it again, this time slowly, before you stick your foot in
    your mouth any further than it already is.

    roger said he used photoshop cs5 for two of the three comparisons
    (unsharp mask and smart sharpen) and imagesplus for one comparison
    (richardson-lucy), with the blurring for the tests using photoshop's
    gaussian blur.

    in other words, most things were done with photoshop, and had he been
    aware of a richardson-lucy plug-in (they do exist), he could have done
    all of it in photoshop.

    so eric's statement that he used photoshop is very close to true.
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
  10. Very few photographers have any idea what the difference
    is. That includes PS users, and it includes those who
    post here.

    I have no concept of what *you* as an individual know about
    it. Enlighten me!

    Does "Bicubic sharper" or "Bicubic smoother" have more or less
    ringing, and how does that compare to Unsharp Mask?

    How about haloing?

    Why does photoshop use Bicubic sharper for down sampling and
    Bicubic smoother for upsampling. Which is related to a Mitchell
    filter and in what way, and the same with some form of Lanczos

    Or just tell me that none of that is relevant, and why...
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 8, 2014
  11. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I wonder if Popinjay is reading this. You are using the word exactly
    as I used it, but I'm sure your tag team buddy will not object.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 8, 2014
  12. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I did not say the article I cited described how he did all these
    things with photoshop. I said he has published 'articles' (note
    plural) and cited this one as an example.
    Eric Stevens, Apr 8, 2014
  13. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I agree completely.
    Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

    It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area,
    but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing
    Tony Cooper, Apr 8, 2014
  14. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    This article may be of interest to some:
    Eric Stevens, Apr 8, 2014
  15. Jeffery Small

    Eric Stevens Guest

    "Can you resample an image to 4 times its original size
    using a Mitchell filter, rather than whatever it is that
    "Smoother" means in "Bicubic Smoother"? Does it make any
    difference to you?

    For that matter, when an image is resampled in PhotoShop
    is it first converted to unity gamma (i.e., 0.4545 as
    opposed to 2.2), or not?"
    Eric Stevens, Apr 8, 2014
  16. "Clark Vision have published articles describing their
    tests with all these things using Photoshop. See for

    The one example does not show what you said, and
    specifically says otherwise. The other articles that
    Roger Clark has published don't either.

    Oddly enough, given two or three other comments you've
    made, it does appear that you may be the only one
    responding on this topic that actually does understand
    the significance of these various algorithms to

    In particular, you suggested this well written article:

    Which near the end has this statement:

    "By strengthening a mask in a "high" layer
    corresponding to a small blur, you increase the Mach
    bands in the small features (generally called high
    frequency components of an image for obvious
    reasons). By strengthening a mask in a "low" layer
    corresponding to a large blur, you increase the Mach
    bands in really large features"

    How many here will recognize that as essentially saying
    that wavelet sharpening gives you the same effect as
    using both USM and HP sharpen together? Except
    that with wavelet sharpening the algorithm spreads it
    over the entire range, not just at two specific spatial

    I usually have described that by saying an high pass
    sharpen tool works on multiple transitions in sequence,
    while a USM tool works on single transitions. Both have
    a very high frequency component, but with a different
    energy distribution.

    This is not just an off the wall discussion of theory,
    it's about how to get better photographs!

    Or, one can do what Savageduck did, citing two images to
    demonstrate exactly the point that I made: most readers
    here (and specifically him) are completely unaware of
    the significant distinctions in how and how to use different
    sharpen tools or why there are different filters than
    "Smoother" and "Sharper" for Bicubic resampling in good
    software tools.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 8, 2014
  17. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    it seems that you are confused. again.

    lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and
    that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others.
    why make things more complicated than they need to be?
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
  18. Jeffery Small

    Guest Guest

    the article eric posted says roger used photoshop for *two* out of the
    three comparisons and also for the original preparation of the images
    prior to the tests. only one out of the three used something else.

    you're once again, wrong and as usual, refuse to admit it.

    what you miss is that people do *not* need to know about any of that to
    make good images.

    what adobe has done with photoshop is simplify it so that non-geeks can
    use all of the various algorithms while retaining all of the geeky
    features for those who are geeks. there is no limitation in the app.
    it's all there for those who want it and usable for those who don't.
    that's what makes an app powerful.
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
  19. Jeffery Small

    Tony Cooper Guest

    You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want
    to see/hear it.

    Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets
    the results they want...".

    That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to
    post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long
    as they get the results they want. As you yourself say, nobody [sic]
    is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was
    used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed
    to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an
    editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count
    more than the photographer's.

    The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate
    issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer
    getting the results wanted.

    As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine
    what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases
    them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or
    otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in
    that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the
    same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything
    of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what
    we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an
    uncomplicated and efficient system.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 8, 2014
  20. Jeffery Small

    sid Guest

    Oh, you mean the file manager, that you ran by clicking the finder icon in
    the dock
    It's an app that's autostarted when you log in. It lives at

    notice the .app at the end.
    So you are running the first app then?
    I'm not talking about "as far as the user is concerned". You said you don't
    have to run anything to have a preview display. I'm saying you do.

    All of this is pointless, I'm just trying to point out that your mac isn't
    some wonder machine that can do loads of things no one else can, it's just a
    computer and works like other computers. It's not magic.
    sid, Apr 8, 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.