Re: raw digital camera files
- From: ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:43:47 -0700
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:15:55 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:22 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
is, that after it's read in, I could not really find the tools in gimp or
anything else to do the simple exposure and contrast adjustments that are
quite easy to do in LightZone.
I can't believe you said that. *Ridiculous*. You have just
lost all credibility.
both UFRAW and GIMP have very obvious and easy to use tools for
adjusting exposure and contrast. With UFRAW there are not only
multiple ways but very little else, so it is hard to imagine
that anyone could miss it. GIMP of course is a very large and
sophisticated program, so it is perhaps possible that some might
find the interface a steep learning curve. However, figuring
out how to adjust brightness and contrast is so easy that
virtually *any* 8 year old could do it.
I found, a long time ago, how to do that in gimp. Only problem was that I
could never get any really acceptable results.
Giggle snort. You can't get acceptable results for brightness
and contrast??? Yeah, sure.
Correct. It seems that every time I adjust brightness and contrast in GIMP
there is a very limited amount of improvement before it starts getting
rather washed out. IMHO lightzone does a much better job. Could be the 16
bit as opposed to 8 bit problem.
From my understanding, most tools whichread raw files stick you with an 8 bit per color image that is really
difficult to do much with while LZ gives you 16 - and a lot more
flexibility.
Again, it becomes obvious that you are fabricating your entire
story. Nobody who can actually claim to even have a hint of
knowledge about the actual differences between using 8 bit and
16 bit editing formats can be as casually *stupid* as you are
claiming to be.
I believe there is a difference between the 'usual' 8 bit form and the 16
bit linear format utilized by LZ.
Granted there is. But just as granted is that very very few people
would be able to distinguish the difference, and *certainly* not someone
who can't adjust brightness or contrast with GIMP.
Seems like I used to do better several years ago when I was using my old
1mp Kodak. Since I moved to a 4mp Minolta, I've not had great results.
You are a ringer!
Not too bad either! Not as smooth as some, but *lots* smoother
than others.
It *is* a fact that the one single real problem with GIMP is
that it uses 8 bit depth. The level of sophistication necessary
to understand 1) why that is actually a problem but 2) why it
isn't important enough to have yet been "corrected" is great.
Suffice to say that casual users need not be concerned, 8 bit is
fine if you aren't making movies for Hollywood producers.
Suffice too, to say that your claim that 16 bits gives "a lot
more flexibility" is marketing hype, not technical speak. And
my guess is that you *know* that quite well.
Mind telling us what your connection to LZ happens to be?
My connection is that I have found it to be useful. I see that you are
totally closed minded on the subject. It would take you less than a half
hour to download it and try it.
Then why don't you provide a *valid* reason to try it? So far
you are sounding more like a fairly slick marketing scheme
presented by a relatively skilled marketeer.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if you try it or not. It's certainly no
skin off my nose. It's a free product (for Linux), so no one makes any
money from it.
I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject as, I'm sure, Ansel Adams
would as well.
IMHO - the tools in LightZone are easier to use to make the most common
adjustment to digital photos. You obviously disagree without ever having
tried it, so there we are.
It could be that you have merely been sucked in by somebody
else's marketing hype, but my bet is that you helped generate
this one.
Marketing hype for a free product - hmmmm.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: raw digital camera files
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: raw digital camera files
- References:
- raw digital camera files
- From: ray
- Re: raw digital camera files
- From: John-Paul Stewart
- Re: raw digital camera files
- From: ray
- Re: raw digital camera files
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: raw digital camera files
- From: ray
- Re: raw digital camera files
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- raw digital camera files
- Prev by Date: Re: raw digital camera files
- Next by Date: Re: raw digital camera files
- Previous by thread: Re: raw digital camera files
- Next by thread: Re: raw digital camera files
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|