GET ME OFF THIS GODDAM FI CK LING MAILING LIST IT IS THE 20th attempt I am
making on every damn e-mail available. I will soon start writing nonesence on
your forums so that maybe you can cick me out
Free Mortgage Refinance Quotes
On
On Thursday 01 October 2009, Paul Hartman wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Greg Chapman wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 30 Sep 09 22:10 Martin Nordholts said:
>>> Then why don't you unsubscribe? Link can be found at the
>>> bottom of the mails
>>
>> Maybe because TREY does not see the link.
>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
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Greg Chapman wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 30 Sep 09 22:10 Martin Nordholts said:
>>
>> Then why don't you unsubscribe? Link can be found at the
>> bottom of the mails
>
> Maybe because TREY does not see the link. When I opened TREY's mail
> there was no footer visib
Hi Martin,
On 30 Sep 09 22:10 Martin Nordholts said:
>
> Then why don't you unsubscribe? Link can be found at the
> bottom of the mails
Maybe because TREY does not see the link. When I opened TREY's mail
there was no footer visible, but the message was marked as having an
attachment. Turns o
On 2009-10-01, saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com
wrote:
>> Let me try to rephrase it... Consider two scenarios (with a particular
>> OP of CHANNEL-OP-*), left one and right one:
>>
>> save-selection + delete-selection
>> do few FuzzySelects with OP do few FuzzySelects
On 2009-10-01, Bryan wrote:
> 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
On 2009-10-01, John Mills wrote:
>> 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 matc
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 11:04 PM, TREY Mcatt wrote:
> > I would like to stop receiveing the gimp e-mail's. Thanks
>
> Then why don't you unsubscribe? Link can be found at the
> bottom of the mails
>
And in the headers of every message, and in the
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
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 07:11 -0700,
> 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 wi
Ilya -
Thanks for your earlier note -- I am quite happy to stand corrected and
your post suggests a basic experiment I can easily do: compare in-camera
processed and post-processed RAW images for the same scene and settings.
I'll have a limited sample to work with: my only camera delivering RAW
In a photo book I was reading of some ways to process a black and white photo.
This particular book was using Photoshop, as most do. There was a particular
procedure that PS is capable of and I was wonder if that capability exists in
GIMP as well.
What they would do to adjust the tone for a partic
>On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi 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
Quoting Ilya Zakharevich :
> Let me try to rephrase it... Consider two scenarios (with a particular
> OP of CHANNEL-OP-*), left one and right one:
>
> save-selection + delete-selection
> do few FuzzySelects with OP do few FuzzySelects with OP
> combine with saved-selection wit
On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi 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-cle
16 matches
Mail list logo
