Re: gimp 2.4, what an improvement!

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:52:06 -0900, floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:
: Robert Coe <bob@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:08:48 -0900, floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson)
: >wrote:
: >: >> > A bigger flaw, IMO, is that GIMP's RAW module isn't very well
: >: >> > integrated. In that respect (but maybe only in that respect) it
: >: >> > isn't any better than Zoombrowser.
: ...
: >: Given the integretion of UFRAW when used with Linux, I
: >: don't exactly understand what is meant by "GIMP's RAW module
: >: isn't very well integrated" either.
: >
: >What I mean is that there are many operations that cannot be directly
: >performed on a RAW file.
:
: That is inherent in the raw sensor data. It's not a
: question of integrating UFRAW and GIMP in some way that
: is better. There are operations which reasonably can be
: performed only on the raw data set, there are operations
: which can happen only during the process of converting
: that data set to an image format, and there are image
: format operations which can not be done directly on the
: raw data until it is in an image format.
:
: A RAW file is not an image, it is a raw data set (which
: can generate an infinite number of different images).

Since it encapsulates all the data recorded by the camera, it's as much an
image as a TIF or a JPEG. It just isn't isn't in a format that 3rd-party
contributors write editors for.

: >When you try to perform such an operation, both GIMP
: >and Zoombrowser dynamically convert the file to a format (e.g., TIF or JPEG)
: >on which the operation can be performed. But there's no way to save the
: >modified TIF or JPEG back as a RAW file. (I'm a Windows user, but I'd be
: >surprised if it were any different in Linux.)
: >
: >To be fair about it, I'm not sure that any currently available photo editor
: >has this capability.
:
: I doubt an editor ever will.
:
: >Since RAW format varies by camera brand, only a
: >manufacturer would be apt to provide it, and then only for its own RAW format.
:
: That is the same as saying that only a manufacturer
: could convert their raw data set to an image format.
: Obviously a number of people (principally Dave Coffin
: though) have figured out virtually every raw format.

No, because writing, say, a RAW-to-TIF converter doesn't give you a TIF-to-RAW
converter as a side effect. And the latter might actually be more difficult to
write for reasons you allude to below.

: >But Canon's flagship photo editor, Digital Photo Professional, doesn't even
: >switch you into another editor; in that respect it's less convenient than
: >either GIMP or Zoombrowser.
:
: Okay, so it is actually a photo editor with a built in
: conversion module for Canon's raw formats only. That
: doesn't reflect on it's capability as an image editor as
: such, but it is certainly restricted as a raw format
: converter!

It works well as a RAW-format converter, assuming your destination is TIF or
JPEG. But its functionality is very limited as a photo editor. And it doesn't
automatically put you into a more feature-rich editor, as UFRAW does. But for
what it does do well, it's more convenient than UFRAW.

: (And the same is true, relatively, for the
: software provided by virtually every manufacturer.
: Which to my way of looking at it makes them much to
: specific to even consider using, but for someone who
: doesn't have the same long term technical interests that
: I do those programs are very convenient.)
:
: >But for what it does do well (cropping, color
: >adjustment, white balance, etc.), I think DPP is easier to use than GIMP or
: >Zoombrowser.
:
: I don't know what Zoombrowser is.

One of the freebies you get when you buy a Canon camera. With more expensive
Canons, you also get DPP.

: GIMP of course uses
: UFRAW as a plugin module for raw format conversions, so
: I assume you are saying you like DPP better than UFRAW.

Yes.

: I've never used DPP either, so I can't say that it is
: or isn't, but it certainly has *nothing* to do with
: the "integration" of UFRAW into GIMP in the specific
: way that you've described. If UFRAW is not as easy to
: use, for whatever reason, as DPP is for you, then you
: have a valid point is using DPP instead.
:
: But complaining that it won't convert an image format
: back to a raw sensor data set is not valid. There is no
: 1 to 1 relationship. For example, if you convert a PPM
: file to TIFF format, and then back to PPM, the resulting
: image in theory is identical to the original. But when
: you convert raw sensor data to an image format there are
: many arbitrary adjustments made that do not inherently
: reverse uniquely to the same original data. There are
: roughly an infinite number of possible raw data sets
: that could have produced any given TIFF file, for
: example. Which one would you choose?

Any one that looks, to the RAW converter, as though it just came out of the
camera. Ideally, of course, it would preserve all Exif data and do as little
violence to the original image data as possible.

The object would be to be able to retain all images in RAW format. But if I
liked GIMP/UFRAW as much as DPP, I guess I wouldn't care.

Bob
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: gimp 2.4, what an improvement!
    ... :>: Given the integretion of UFRAW when used with Linux, ... :>performed on a RAW file. ... That is inherent in the raw sensor data. ... format operations which can not be done directly on the ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The free GIMP
    ... editor before expanding it, the actual common experience ... range was compressed and stored to an 8 bit format. ... Which means that shooting in RAW, ... right with the RAW converter, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: The free GIMP
    ... editor before expanding it, the actual common experience ... range was compressed and stored to an 8 bit format. ... Which means that shooting in RAW, ... The second point is that even when shooting RAW mode, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: RAW Intro?
    ... beginner are likely to want are right there and it is simple to revert ... One of the issues of working with RAW is that each manufacturer has ... There is no guaranty that the format will be supported, ... Adobe and UFRAW is not perfect, but it seems to be all we have. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: RAW Intro?
    ... a beginner are likely to want are right there and it is simple to ... One of the issues of working with RAW is that each manufacturer ... There is no guaranty that the format will be ... which ufraw is based), ...
    (alt.photography)