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

Reply via email to