Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
From | J. Clarke |
Date | 12/01/2013 03:32 (11/30/2013 21:32) |
Message-ID | <MPG.2d0469ade880cf4198a1fe@news.newsguy.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
Floyd L. DavidsonWhy is that?
"J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>wrote:J. ClarkeFloyd L. Davidson
In article <87mwklmsp6.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...Floyd L. DavidsonJ. Clarke
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:nospamFloyd L. Davidson
In article <3PSdnR7bfK0hZATPnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>wrote:nospamAlan BrowneFloyd L. Davidsonnospam
Also be aware that with Linux if you become proficient at writing shell scripts there is just no end of ways to improve productivity. The ImageMagick tools are fabulous for editing. And there are many ways a shell script can speed up your workflow. For example, I preview my images, as JPEGs, with a very customized version of XV which can sort them into various directories. The JPEG images I don't want to convert with UFRAW go into one special directory, and then a shell script moves the RAW files to the same directories where the JPEG is now at. Then I run UFRAW and it never loads a file I don't want to process. Plus when I want to run the batch on all of them, I use a script that does odd things like automatically setting wavelet noise reduction depending on the ISO it was shot at, and it determines how many CPU cores are available and proceeds to keep each CPU busy with a different process (which with as many as 12 cores can make a huge difference in how fast a few hundred RAW files can be converted to TIFF files).
if that isn't proof that linux users do things in the most difficult and most convoluted way possible, i don't know what is.
Well put. (Except that Linux users can make things even more difficult and convoluted when they really warm up).
To a Linux user the above inanity is a badge of honour.
no kidding. they think it is somehow a good thing.
meanwhile, mac/win users can do the same in almost no time, without needing to write and debug a script. drag lightroom to the apps folder and start processing.
once they do that, they can go out and do something more interesting in all the time they have left over from not needing to hack up and then debug a solution.
So the fact that you don't have to develop your own set of tools, and just take one off the shelf and form you workflow around it somehow is better. Fine.
Except you of course missed the point that what was describe turns out to be faster, more efficient and more effective because the tools are designed to match the needed workflow in stead of the other way around.
You make it sound as if each job requires development of every shell script used! But of course on a normal basis that isn't required. These tools are developed over a period of years and are very precisely targeted at reducing wasted time with a specific workflow.
And when something special that is different comes along, that your program can't do... you just have to slug through it. If it adds 5 seconds to each image processed in a couple of shoots with 1000 images, that's 10,000 seconds of time. If instead of wasting 2 or 3 hours, one spends 10 minutes writing a shell scrip that does it all in half an hour... You think your whiz bang click the buttons program is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I see it as a drag on productivity.
I get better results in 1/3rd the time, so who is right?
(1) Since a Mac is a unix box, shell scripts should work fine on it. (2) Powershell on Windows gives just as much control as any Unix shell, possibly more so.
That would be true if the tradition UNIX interface had been maintained. But an icon based desktop requires a very different arrangement for user files and projects.
While the shell is there, it is not nearly as effective to use.Give us some real-world examples based on your extensive experience with Windows or OS/X shell programming.
And example would be that if you click on the desktop icon to invoke a text editor (or an image editor), it comes up with the same working directory every single time.It does? Somebody better tell my copy of Photoshop because it is blissfully unaware of that.
It reads and writes to the same set of directories every time.What is this "it" to which you refer? The shortcut, or something else? How does the contents of a shortcut have any effect on shell programming?
And any subshell invoked will inherit the same environment. Chaining filters together with pipes requires effort to use correctly.Why would anyone want to invoke a "subshell" from a shortcut?
The problems are just downright inconvenient. While the simplified icon interface is then attractive, even if it is not particularly efficient.So you would rather outline an area to be masked by clattering away on the keyboard all afternoon than by tracing around it with a mouse?
I've worked as a professional programmer. I do not delude myself that writing code is an efficient way to improve my photography. And any photographer who can afford to pay programming staff has already made it to such a high level that any "improvements" would be mere affectation.J. ClarkeFloyd L. Davidson
But the fact is that most photographers want to take and process pictures, not develop programming proficiency.
Most, yes... but those who are determined to do what it takes to produce a better work product either learn programming or hire programmers.
That may seem odd, but I'll point out that for at least 50 years every engineer has been taking programming courses.Yep. Which few of them actually use for anything.
You want to be an architech, you learn programming.Architects aren't exactly engineers you know. And few of them write code for a living.
You want to design bridges, you learn programming.And when you go to design the bridge you draw it in Autocad or Solidworks and run the stresses in NISA or NASTRAN, you don't write code.
I'll give you a hint: if you really want to learn photography today, and in particular digital photography, you need to learn at least some programming. And the more programming you learn the better your work product will be.I'll give you a hint--I was a programmer before "Unix" was a word. Anything that you say to me about it is in the nature of teaching your grandmother to such eggs.
It isn't for everyone, or maybe even most. It's a requirement for the best.OK, Floyd, tell us exactly how many lines of code you personally have written to support your photography and how long it took you and what exactly those lines accomplish that made such a vast improvement in the quality of your output.