Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 2014-04-06 07:41 (2014-04-05 21:41) |
| Message-ID | <87r45bnhex.fld@apaflo.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Jeffery Small |
| Followups | nospam (1h & 3m) Jeffery Small (22h & 49m) |
jeff@cjsa.com (Jeffery Small) wrote:
Jeffery SmallIf 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.
In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson wrote:Floyd L. DavidsonJeffery Small
Typically UFRAW is configured to save the current configuration as the default for the next image, which means (with that option enabled) you must set all configuration options each time UFRAW is started. Or another way to put it, there is no standard set of defaults that will always be somewhere close. If the last image processed was way out in left field, the next one will not even come close to looking right unless it is also off into left field.
Thanks. That's good to know. However, I cannot understand the logic behind this behavior.
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 configuration.
Shouldn't the program read the camera settings for the exposure as shot an then adjust the default settings to match what was the target exposure selected by the user? This would make more sense to me.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.
If you're adjusting a series of pictures, it would then make sense to allow the current set of adjustments to be stored and easily reapplied on the fly.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.
Thanks for all the great information, Floyd. I haven't been using UFRaw as I thought it was broken. I'll spend some time with it and see if I can get a better grasp on its nuances.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 needs...
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
2014-04-05-
