 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006RAW Images
Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages?  SignatureCoolAzzRob*** RollingblueThunder.com BlackBikeWeek.info Golf-Augusta.com KiMoMi.net www.rollingbluethunder.com/rbt35/ Rolling Blue Thunder Productions, Inc. Still Doing What It Do! > Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? None ... I don't recommend editting RAW images. In fact, I don't believe there is any program that edits them. I process my RAW images with Photoshop ACR. I used Raw Shooter Premium a little prior to that. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 OK I used the wrong verb but I hope is was fairly obvious what I meant. Thanks for eventually getting around to answering the point of my post. SignatureCoolAzzRob*** RollingblueThunder.com BlackBikeWeek.info Golf-Augusta.com KiMoMi.net www.rollingbluethunder.com/rbt35/ Rolling Blue Thunder Productions, Inc. Still Doing What It Do! >> Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? > > None ... I don't recommend editting RAW images. In fact, I don't believe > there is any program that edits them. I process my RAW images with > Photoshop > ACR. I used Raw Shooter Premium a little prior to that. > OK I used the wrong verb but I hope is was fairly obvious what I meant. > Thanks for eventually getting around to answering the point of my post. It isn't very obvious what you meant, as several people have posted here who clearly did not realize that you don't edit RAW images. Glad to know I could be of limitted help to you. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? Photoshop CS is what I use but it is pricey. > Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? Capture NX seems to do the trick for images from my D70s, but it only works with Nikon bodies, so if you have a Canon body I would assume they probably have a dedicated converter. There are also third party conveters but I have not btried any yet. Cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk >Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? Sony Image Converter is the best, but it only works with the Sona Alpha! If you compare Adobe Lightroom and Sony - you will delete the Adobe! Unfortunately or Fortunately depending on how you view it, I was gifted a KM Maxxum 5D this past Christmas. Anyone know if the Sony Image Converter will work with images taken with the KM 5D? SignatureCoolAzzRob*** RollingblueThunder.com BlackBikeWeek.info Golf-Augusta.com KiMoMi.net www.rollingbluethunder.com/rbt35/ Rolling Blue Thunder Productions, Inc. Still Doing What It Do! >>Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? > > Sony Image Converter is the best, but it only works with the Sona Alpha! > > If you compare Adobe Lightroom and Sony - you will delete the Adobe! > Unfortunately or Fortunately depending on how you view it, I was gifted a KM > Maxxum 5D this past Christmas. Anyone know if the Sony Image Converter will > work with images taken with the KM 5D? Should. Sony have a vested interest in keeping the products compatible, at least for a couple years... IAC, Elements or PS RAW plugin certainly reads 5D MRW's. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? RAW images are converted, rather than being edited. The RAW files vary from camera to camera. Which one are you using? Jack >> Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? Lightroom. > RAW images are converted, rather than being edited. The RAW files > vary from camera to camera. Which one are you using? While conversion is essential to RAW processing, increasingly these converters can crop, color balance, recover highlights, pull from shadows, adjust luminance by channel, and so on. So it kinda depends on how you define "edit". SignatureJohn McWilliams KM 5D. SignatureCoolAzzRob*** RollingblueThunder.com BlackBikeWeek.info Golf-Augusta.com KiMoMi.net www.rollingbluethunder.com/rbt35/ Rolling Blue Thunder Productions, Inc. Still Doing What It Do! >>Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? > > RAW images are converted, rather than being edited. The RAW files > vary from camera to camera. Which one are you using? > > Jack > Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? I use Bibble for converting RAW to some output format. -Wolfgang Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:0g8144- 4ev.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de: >> Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? > > I use Bibble for converting RAW to some output format. > > -Wolfgang I use Digital photo pro which comes with the canon 30d kit. You can edit what ever you want or transfer to photoshop cs2 and then save as *.tif. Just tried it out today so I'm a freshmen on that topic but seems to work good. Jean Bouchard SignaturePhotos http://www.chez.com/anaclet > Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:0g8144- >>> Which program do you recommend for editing RAWimages? >> I use Bibble for converting RAW to some output format. > I use Digital photo pro which comes with the canon 30d kit. You can edit > what ever you want or transfer to photoshop cs2 and then save as *.tif. Bibble should allow you to do that as well. Though I hear tell the photoshop interface may be iffy, as photoshop is not exactly forthcoming with information there. But since there is no photoshop for Linux (and I don't exactly feel I need it, for the price, else I'd run it with an emulator), I have no firsthand experience there. > Just tried it out today so I'm a freshmen on that topic but seems to work > good. You'll probably need some time till you figure out what you want and need for your personal workflow. -Wolfgang According to Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>: [ ... ] > But since there is no photoshop for Linux (and I don't exactly > feel I need it, for the price, else I'd run it with an emulator), > I have no firsthand experience there. I presume that you know about "the GIMP" as a free alternative to PhotoShop, and dcraw for processing the RAW images into a format which you can work on with the GIMP. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to PhotoShop, and dcraw for processing the RAW images into a format > which you can work on with the GIMP. Rather than using dcraw, you should use ufraw, which is based on dcraw, and is a plug-in for GIMP. In theory cinepaint should be releasing their Glasgow release pretty soon, but they have missed dates in the past. SignatureMichael Meissner email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org http://www.the-meissners.org According to Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org>: > > According to Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Rather than using dcraw, you should use ufraw, which is based on dcraw, and is > a plug-in for GIMP. And which, IIRC, depends on dcraw being present on the system to use with a wrapper which turns it into a plugin. As it turns out -- my current version of the GIMP is the wrong version to merge in dcraw seamlessly -- so I run a script (on this system) to convert the images, and then process them with the GIMP. > In theory cinepaint should be releasing their Glasgow release pretty soon, but > they have missed dates in the past. Cinepaint? I don't know that one -- but I am (mostly) running Sun's Solaris 10, not linux. On some systems, I'm running OpenBSD instead. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >According to Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org>: >> > I presume that you know about "the GIMP" as a free alternative [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And which, IIRC, depends on dcraw being present on the system to >use with a wrapper which turns it into a plugin. UFRAW is entirely self contained. It is not just a plug-in for GIMP either, it can be used in batch mode or as a stand alone GUI tool as well as a GIMP plug-in. > As it turns out -- my current version of the GIMP is the wrong >version to merge in dcraw seamlessly -- so I run a script (on this >system) to convert the images, and then process them with the GIMP. It provides a very nice interface, and generally is just much more useful than DCRAW itself. >> In theory cinepaint should be releasing their Glasgow release pretty soon, but >> they have missed dates in the past. > > Cinepaint? I don't know that one -- but I am (mostly) running >Sun's Solaris 10, not linux. On some systems, I'm running OpenBSD >instead. It isn't ready for prime time yet, but certainly has some long term potential. Cinepaint started as a fork of The GIMP, but it now uses a 16 bit internal format and has some interesting color management tools. It is aimed at cinematographers. Of course The GIMP is also probably far ahead of what you indicate you are currently running. The 2.3.13 development release is *very* interesting. It does have some significant rough edges though (more so than 2.3.12 did). SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com According to Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>: > >According to Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org>: > >> > I presume that you know about "the GIMP" as a free alternative [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > GIMP either, it can be used in batch mode or as a stand alone > GUI tool as well as a GIMP plug-in. O.K. I must be confusing it with some of the other versions. > > As it turns out -- my current version of the GIMP is the wrong > >version to merge in dcraw seamlessly -- so I run a script (on this [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > release is *very* interesting. It does have some significant > rough edges though (more so than 2.3.12 did). Hmm ... On Solaris 10, I'm running: 2.0.2 On OpenbBSD 3.9, it is: 2.2.10 And just installed with OpenBSD 4.0 I have: 2.2.12 still some ways behind your indicated versions. And ufraw is not included in the packages for even that latest OpenBSD. Looking at ufraw, to make it from sources, the dependencies tree is massive, and I'm not sure that it is worth the trouble. :-) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >According to Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>: >> Of course The GIMP is also probably far ahead of what you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 2.0.2 That's pretty old. > On OpenbBSD 3.9, it is: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 2.2.12 Those aren't too bad. The most recent stable release was 2.2.13, which came out last August. >still some ways behind your indicated versions. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Looking at ufraw, to make it from sources, the dependencies tree >is massive, and I'm not sure that it is worth the trouble. :-) Well, not massive... but big enough I suppose. It really is worth the trouble. I think going to the 2.3 development version of GIMP is also well worth the effort (which will probably be more effort than what it takes to install ufraw!). However, the latest release, 2.3.13, bombs on any attempt to load a CMYK color profile that isn't tagged internally as a type CMYK. And after it crashes once, it can't be restarted because it has written that file to its runtime configuration file, and then bombs during startup! It takes a bit of trouble shooting to get that fixed. (And, while it isn't the "right" thing to do, commenting out two lines of code in the source "fixes" the problem so that it merely ignores such a color profile rather than crashing.) That is not recommended for a true production system, but for anything less it strike me as well worth the effort. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com According to Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>: > >According to Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>: > >> Of course The GIMP is also probably far ahead of what you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's pretty old. That is the version which came bundled with Solaris 10. I just checked the one system with Solaris 10 U2 on it, and that too is version 2.0.2. I've been resisting the major undertaking which building "the GIMP" fresh on that system involves. > > On OpenbBSD 3.9, it is: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Those aren't too bad. The most recent stable release was 2.2.13, which > came out last August. And OpenBSD was just released about a month ago. so that makes sense. > >still some ways behind your indicated versions. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, not massive... but big enough I suppose. Well ... I was considering bringing "the GIMP" up to the most recent to work with ufraw -- though it looks as though it will work all the way back to 2.0, so perhaps I can work with that. "ufraw" does require locating, compiling, and installing at least one library -- lcms -- needs to be added. Then, based on previous experience, configure will bitch about something else, and lcms will likely require extra libraries to allow me to build it as well. :-) And then add the problems with older programs when a newer version of some of the existing libs is installed. There have been some nasty incompatabilities there as well. It *used* to be that anything GNU would just work with newer shared libs -- but not these days, I fear. I may be forced into re-compiling a ton of other things as well. > It really is worth the trouble. I think going to the 2.3 > development version of GIMP is also well worth the effort (which > will probably be more effort than what it takes to install > ufraw!). A *lot* more effort. > However, the latest release, 2.3.13, bombs on any attempt to > load a CMYK color profile that isn't tagged internally as a type [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That is not recommended for a true production system, but for > anything less it strike me as well worth the effort. O.K. Thanks, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org>: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Rather than using dcraw, you should use ufraw, which is based on dcraw, and is >> a plug-in for GIMP. Yeah, I've renewed my interest in the GIMP and dcraw since I discovered ufraw. > And which, IIRC, depends on dcraw being present on the system to > use with a wrapper which turns it into a plugin. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sun's Solaris 10, not linux. On some systems, I'm running OpenBSD > instead. Yep, it was good to see you on misc@openbsd.org. Sorry I couldn't help. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > According to Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org>: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And which, IIRC, depends on dcraw being present on the system to > use with a wrapper which turns it into a plugin. Nope. It has a modified copy of dcraw.c in the build directory, and is linked directly into the plugin. I did patch an early version of ufraw to use a more recent dcraw before ufraw had a new release. SignatureMichael Meissner email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org http://www.the-meissners.org >> Rather than using dcraw, you should use ufraw, which is based on dcraw, and is >> a plug-in for GIMP. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > version to merge in dcraw seamlessly -- so I run a script (on this > system) to convert the images, and then process them with the GIMP. Rawstudio for Linux is quite nice. Fast, too. Peter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.