Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 21:51 In article <7uopk6Ffp4U1(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >> > You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the > >> > program what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to > >> > lighten the image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or > >> > anything else. Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of > >> > steps, and you will have to decide what those steps will be. > >> > >> Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? > > > > when did ufraw get mind reading functionality? > > Long time ago. It does default exposure correction when you read the file > - and yes it's quite simple to reset if you don't like it. that's not mind reading, and that's exactly the same in just about every raw converter (and is usually not ideal).
From: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 21:51 In article <7uopmhFfp4U2(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >>Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? > > > > Never. Why should I? I shoot RAW and upload into either Lightroom or > > Bridge converting my NEF file to a .dng. > > Well, I don't know - possibly because it has features you were > complaining about not having - like default corrections applied when you > read the file in. you obviously haven't used lightroom, since it does exactly that.
From: tony cooper on 25 Feb 2010 21:58 On 26 Feb 2010 02:24:17 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:37:29 -0500, tony cooper wrote: > >> On 26 Feb 2010 01:21:43 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:52 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:35:40 -0600, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Nothing. I did that (tried GIMP) and as others have said: a complete >>>>>> waste of time. I am surprised that anyone is still suggesting it as >>>>>> a credible option. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>I tried it a couple of times, but (if it hasn't been improved) it >>>>>seemed that the creator had set out to make it as non-intuitive as >>>>>possible. Allen >>>> >>>> I have yet to see/use an intuitive software program. Something that >>>> is intuitive is something that anticipates what you want to do and >>>> directs you to or takes you to the next step. Image processing >>>> software doesn't do that. >>>> >>>> You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the >>>> program what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to >>>> lighten the image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or >>>> anything else. Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of >>>> steps, and you will have to decide what those steps will be. >>> >>>Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? >> >> Never. Why should I? I shoot RAW and upload into either Lightroom or >> Bridge converting my NEF file to a .dng. > >Well, I don't know - possibly because it has features you were >complaining about not having - like default corrections applied when you >read the file in. Where do you get the idea that I'm complaining? I don't want the program making the decisions. All those things I've listed above...I choose how to do. If UFRAW makes those decisions for me, I wouldn't want it. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 22:15 In article <8jeeo5hqav1kb7vvqnfd981kdekct4sgp7(a)4ax.com>, J. Caldwell <nospam(a)anyserver.net> wrote: > I know the difference exactly. What you blind-worshipping PhotoSlop > fanatics and fools don't realize is that right up until CS4 PhotoSlop WAS > only a 16-bit math platform during its whole existence. absolutely false.
From: J. Caldwell on 25 Feb 2010 22:19
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:15:00 -0500, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <8jeeo5hqav1kb7vvqnfd981kdekct4sgp7(a)4ax.com>, J. Caldwell ><nospam(a)anyserver.net> wrote: > >> I know the difference exactly. What you blind-worshipping PhotoSlop >> fanatics and fools don't realize is that right up until CS4 PhotoSlop WAS >> only a 16-bit math platform during its whole existence. > >absolutely false. That comment coming from the well known, never owned a camera, never took a photo, never used an editor, "nospam the troll". |