Well thank you Simon, even though you didn't have the answer at least I don't feel alone on this issue. I'll see if I can find anything more in a UFRaw site. Much obliged. -Bryan
>There was nothing wrong with your question: It was perfectly clear. > >What was strange is that everyone on the list who replied, did not >answer your question but answered the question that thought that they >had read. Perhaps, they simply do not want to answer it, or the >explanation missed its mark and had to be reformatted to that of the >layman :) Myself included. > >I had a quick look on the UFraw website. It briefly explains how it >saves the file from the programme to the disc, but does not explain in >which format it passes the file to Gimp. Sorry, but I don't know the >answer. > >You could try asking on a UFraw mailing list if there is one, or the >UFraw forum: >http://sourceforge.net/projects/ufraw/forums/forum/434060 > >Simon. > >Bryan wrote: >>> On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi <for...@gimpusers.com> wrote: >>>> In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in UFRAW, >> is >>>> there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in Gimp >> or >>>> other editing application) than what you might get straight from the >> camera? >>> This is not a very have-a-clear-answer topic. >>> >>> I would guess that with Canon, the answer is straightforward: the >>> RAW-converted output would be SIGNIFICANTLY better than in-camera one >>> in ALL respects. Dynamic range, handling of clipping, handling of >>> noise, sharpness, etc. >>> >>> With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex >>> hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be >>> in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear. I did not >>> see any report of RAW processor which can match Apical-style "Dynamic >>> Range Optimizations". >>> >>> So: there might be one respect (tonal mapping, sometimes called >>> "dynamic range") in which RAW-processed-JPEG might be not as good as >>> in-camera one... >>> >>>> It feels as though I have a lot of latitude in GIMP. >>> 8-bit is good enough for "minimally postprocessed" images, since noise >>> would provide sufficient dithering, both in highlights and in darks. >>> However, significant noise reduction and/or substantial tonal mapping >>> has a risk to make banding visible. Which makes GIMP not very >>> suitable for such styles of photography. (Not so with the subjects I >>> favor most, so I did not see that.) >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> Ilya >>> >>> >> Ok, I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before I >> decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge. I'm >> shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because without >> opening the file first with UFRaw, I can't get it into into Gimp for Post >> Processing. I hope I'm right so far. Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw >> and whether I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it >> to Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw converted it >> to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks crappy in GIMP, >> particulairly when zoomed in on? Isn't there is only a relatively small amount >> of things you can do to an image in UFRaw? Which is why you'd want to get that >> RAW file to GIMP to be able to really do some post processing because there is >> only so much you can do to a jpg? >> >> > > -- Bryan (via www.gimpusers.com) _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
