Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who uses the Gimp??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP

Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.

Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
pro's and con's of this product.

Many thanks.


----
MJG
martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com
take THEDOG out to email me.

More about : gimp

Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG wrote:
> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.
>
> Many thanks.

I'm using version 2.2.8 under Windows.

Pros:
----

1. Very, very powerful software. It has serious photo editing
capability. I've used some of the cheap programs before like
Roxio PhotoSuite, but it had been severely dumbed down to cater
to the least sophisticated users. The GIMP on the other hand
is the real deal when it comes to photo editing.

2. Very reliable. I never had a crash.

3. Highly configurable. I haven't done much with this, but
you can make many personal decisions about how the program
works.

4. Free - free to buy, free to upgrade, free documentation,
free help available in the newsgroup and mailing lists. You
can install it free on as many computers as you like without
violating any license agreement or paying any fees.

5. No hidden agendas. The GIMP will not try to use the Internet,
will not spy on you, will not hide your photos in some hidden
folder, will not show you ads, will not send you email asking
you to upgrade or buy something else, will not ask you to
register, and will not require you to use Internet Explorer.
It doesn't try to organize your photos for you, or get you to
print them somewhere. It's a program that does exactly what
it says it does, no more and no less.

6. No silliness. The GIMP won't talk down to you or force you
to go through layers of menus to do things that you could do
much faster once you're willing to learn the shortcuts.

Cons:
----

1. I'm told it's not as powerful as Photoshop. However I suspect
that only professional editors and publishers will find things
in PS that they need that are not in the GIMP.

2. Third party documentation is less available than PS. Any good
computer book store will have a dozen or more PS books, and probably
one or two on PaintShop Pro. but no GIMP books or just one old
one (that you can also download free!)

3. It's harder for a casual user to use than the consumer oriented
programs. There are many more options, widgets and controls and
no good way to master them without much experimenting. So if all
you want to do is crop, enhance colors with one button, and
remove red-eye, and you don't like learning about software, a cheap
program like PhotoSuite will be significantly easier to use.

4. Some people have had trouble installing it under Windows. I
had a problem getting context help to work and a problem with fonts.
I found the answers on one of the mailing lists, but you have to
be prepared to learn something and figure things out if anything
goes wrong. Most people seem to install without problems though.

5. Limited printing support. I edit my photos in the GIMP. When
I want them printed I either print them from another program
(Irfanview), or take them to a commercial printer.

Conclusions
-----------

For the user who doesn't want to do serious editing, likes taking
pictures but doesn't like computers, but needs basic capabilities,
the GIMP is not the best choice.

For the graphics professional who produces images for publication
and who exchanges files with other professionals, the GIMP is not
the best choice.

For people between those extremes, including myself, the GIMP can
be an excellent choice.

There isn't anything I want that isn't in the GIMP. It turned out
that the one thing I needed that wasn't in it was avaialble as a
separate plugin that I put in my plugins directory and it just
worked. The plugin too was free.

I'm sure I'd also be happy with Photoshop or PaintShop Pro. But
why pay $600 or $100 when I can get what I need free, and upgrade
free?

I've tossed my other photo editors and now just use the GIMP.

Alan
August 7, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Does Gimp handle RAW files?
Don
Related resources
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG wrote:

> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
.....

I have been using the GIMP for a couple of years and it does all I need to
do. I have no doubts that Adobe Photoshop has more powerful features, but
those features are beyond my needs, and the price of GIMP (free) is right
(I even donated $10 to GIMP from my appreciation of what it does).
August 7, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG wrote:

> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.
>


Main con IMHO is it has ZERO color management capabilities.

The main pro is it's free.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG wrote:

> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
....

A bit skewed off the main topic, but for those interested here are other
free open source image editing/etc software applications like GIMP; many
available for MS-Windows platform, many for Linux/Unix:
http://freshmeat.net/browse/106/
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp
> on unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections?
> I would like to be able to do all work in 16-bit, including
> on feathered selections. I'm also looking for sharpening filters
> beyond unsharp mask, which do not actually sharpen, like
> Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including entering
> you own oint spread functions).
>
> Roger

My understanding is that the GIMP still only supports 8 bit color.

There is a 32 bit per channel fork of GIMP called Cinepaint. I
haven't tried it as I have no need of more than 8 bits. See:
http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/ for info.

I don't know if the primary GIMP maintainers have any plans
for increasing color depth in the GIMP.

As for sharpening, there is the Unsharp mask and also a
"Sharpen" filter. But you'll need to ask someone more
knowledgeable than I am about what algorithm it uses. The
help screen for it only says that it "accentuates edges".

The "comp.graphics.apps.gimp" newsgroup has some more
sophisticated users who can probably answer your questions.

Alan
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp
on unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections?
I would like to be able to do all work in 16-bit, including
on feathered selections. I'm also looking for sharpening filters
beyond unsharp mask, which do not actually sharpen, like
Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including entering
you own oint spread functions).

Roger
August 7, 2005 9:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:

> Does Gimp handle RAW files?
>

There is a plug-in for RAW files based on DCRAW called ufraw.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 9:57:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:31:23 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:

> Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp on
> unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections? I would like to
> be able to do all work in 16-bit, including on feathered selections. I'm
> also looking for sharpening filters beyond unsharp mask, which do not
> actually sharpen, like Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including
> entering you own oint spread functions).

16-bit support? I was thinking and wanting the same thing and checked
their web site yesterday, Saturday. No mention of it. So, I assume it's
still 8-bits internal. Whether it will load and convert a 16-bit (or
anything greater than 8-bit), I don't know. Don't recall seeing anything
on The Gimp site about it. So, I'm going to assume, no.

But I am going to write them and ask for it. 8-bits per color is okay for
scanning photographs and such, but not film or original digital images.
And I'd especially like to be able to work on all the data from my
Canon D30, when I choose to, even if its only 12-bits.

Stefan
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 10:32:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG wrote:

> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.
>
> Many thanks.
>

0) It's not quite PS, but it's got great capabilities

1) Since ver. 2 it is much improved especially under MicroSoft Win XP.

2) Get ready to work out that right-click mouse button finger.

3) I actually kinda like its perspective correction routines. In fact
that's my main use for it right now. (right-click -> tools -> transform
tools -> perspective)

4) Soooo many li'l windows.

5) Since it is Free software, you are anti-American for using it.

6) Enjoy!


--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 10:38:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:57:14 GMT, MJG wrote:
> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.

comp.graphics.apps.gimp

See also the set at:

gmane.comp.video.gimp...

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
Pueblo, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
38.24N 104.55W | config.com | DM78rf | SK
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 11:36:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG <martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com> writes:

> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.

I haven't used version 2 yet; I try to play with GIMP now and then to
avoid being *totally* ignorant of it.

Last I checked it was totally lacking color management capabilities,
which made it useless for me, and really for anybody doing anything
beyond the most trivial playing around. I believe that's being worked
on, maybe the work has started to appear, that'd be good.

It was also lacking adjustment layers with layer masks, which are key
to my editing style for anything serious.

It also lacked support for 16-bit per channel images, which I probably
care about rather more than their real importance justifies.

However, it wasn't a stupid piece of dumbed-down consumer ware. You
could do real work with it, except for the color management issue.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt; Much of which is still down
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 12:09:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7 Aug 2005 12:13:35 -0700, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>I'm using version 2.2.8 under Windows<snip>

Cheers Alan that's a helpful summation.

I'm in the early days of usage (ie 2 hours!!) but it seems a very
capable package.........

Many thanks



----
MJG
martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com
take THEDOG out to email me.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG <martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com> writes:
> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all
> the bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.

It took me a while to get to grips with, but I've long found it a
great tool now. Finding the cheat sheat (certainly distributed with
1.2, don't know about later versions) made the difference - reading
the documentation properly might help people less impatient than me!
I've found 2.x to be easier to use than 1.2.

People I know who've used both Photoshop and the Gimp generally seem
to prefer the former.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> MJG <martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com> writes:
>> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>>
>> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all
>> the bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>>
>> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
>> pro's and con's of this product.
>
> It took me a while to get to grips with, but I've long found it a
> great tool now. Finding the cheat sheat (certainly distributed with
> 1.2, don't know about later versions) made the difference - reading
> the documentation properly might help people less impatient than me!
> I've found 2.x to be easier to use than 1.2.
>
> People I know who've used both Photoshop and the Gimp generally seem
> to prefer the former.
>


There are also a couple of good books out on usage of the GIMP; the best one
seems to be "Grokking the GIMP"; I own it and another.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:55:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MJG wrote:
> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP......
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.



You probably know this already. Carey Bunks' "Grokking the GIMP" is
essential reading. The Preface of its free eBook edition tells you how the
book got started, and why you should read the book:
http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html

--
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:59:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> There are also a couple of good books out on usage of the GIMP; the best
> one
> seems to be "Grokking the GIMP"; I own it and another.


Sorry, didn't see your reply before I clicked 'Send' (my post).

--
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:59:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lin Chung wrote:

> Proteus wrote:
>> There are also a couple of good books out on usage of the GIMP; the best
>> one
>> seems to be "Grokking the GIMP"; I own it and another.
>
>
> Sorry, didn't see your reply before I clicked 'Send' (my post).
>

no problemo dude!
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 6:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz <oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Does Gimp handle RAW files?

Only with the ufraw plugin, and at that, it can't read white balance
information on most raw formats. That's one of the main reasons I
eventually moved to Photoshop, though I started out on the Gimp.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
August 8, 2005 7:14:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
> ...
>> Main con IMHO is it has ZERO color management capabilities.
> ...
>
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=GIMP+color+managem...

http://www.freecolormanagement.com/color/gimp.html

"I'm working on some Gimp related color management stuff. This is all in
very early stages, so don't be surprised if it's either not easy to
compile/install/use or if it does not do what you expect it to do."

http://www.levien.com/gimp/gcmm.html

Most of the other links say what I just did, there is NO color management
included with the gimp right now and what is avalible is still in alpha
stages and must be compiled and tricky to get to work at all if it's even
accurate etc. If you need color management, the gimp isn't ready for this
yet and neither is linux. Shame as PSCS and the olympus RAW converter are
the main reasons I use windows at all.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 9:42:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:37:40 -0400, Stacey wrote:

> MJG wrote:
>
>> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>>
>> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
>> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>>
>> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
>> pro's and con's of this product.
>>
>
>
> Main con IMHO is it has ZERO color management capabilities.
>
> The main pro is it's free.
Have you tried layer/colours?

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
August 8, 2005 9:42:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neil Ellwood wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:37:40 -0400, Stacey wrote:
>
>> MJG wrote:
>>
>>> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>>>
>>> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
>>> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>>>
>>> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
>>> pro's and con's of this product.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Main con IMHO is it has ZERO color management capabilities.
..
> Have you tried layer/colours?
>

I'm talking about working with different color spaces, proofing printer
profiles and embeding/changing the profile the file is based on etc.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 10:42:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Proteus wrote:
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>> ...
>>> Main con IMHO is it has ZERO color management capabilities.
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=GIMP+color+managem...
>
> http://www.freecolormanagement.com/color/gimp.html
>
> "I'm working on some Gimp related color management stuff. This is all in
> very early stages, so don't be surprised if it's either not easy to
> compile/install/use or if it does not do what you expect it to do."
>
> http://www.levien.com/gimp/gcmm.html
>
> Most of the other links say what I just did, there is NO color management
> included with the gimp right now and what is avalible is still in alpha
> stages and must be compiled and tricky to get to work at all if it's even
> accurate etc. If you need color management, the gimp isn't ready for this
> yet and neither is linux. Shame as PSCS and the olympus RAW converter are
> the main reasons I use windows at all.
>


Agreed. If you need color management, GIMP is not adequate, better to
purchaser something like Photoshop.
August 8, 2005 1:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joe Makowiec wrote:

> On 07 Aug 2005 in rec.photo.digital, wrote:
>
>
>>Does Gimp handle RAW files?
>
>
> You need a plugin, probably something based on DCRAW. I use UFRaw:
>
> http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
>
I was using DCRaw/UFRaw.
I have abandoned it for the time being as I was experiencing problems
with the way it was demosaicing fine detail on D70 raw files, resulting
in visible coloured artifacts.
August 8, 2005 1:08:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> Joe Makowiec wrote:
>
>> On 07 Aug 2005 in rec.photo.digital, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does Gimp handle RAW files?
>>
>>
>> You need a plugin, probably something based on DCRAW. I use UFRaw:
>>
>> http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
>>
> I was using DCRaw/UFRaw.
> I have abandoned it for the time being as I was experiencing problems
> with the way it was demosaicing fine detail on D70 raw files, resulting
> in visible coloured artifacts.

Yep, I tried it for a while with my E300 and always ended up with a weird
magenta color cast that couldn't be adjusted out without making other
colors go weird.
--

Stacey
August 8, 2005 1:17:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp
> on unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections?
> I would like to be able to do all work in 16-bit, including
> on feathered selections. I'm also looking for sharpening filters
> beyond unsharp mask, which do not actually sharpen, like
> Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including entering
> you own oint spread functions).
>
> Roger

No - no 16 bit support yet ("it's coming" - but when?)
Yes - it does have feathered selections by pixel count - shrink and
grow, create border from selection, and various other selection scripts
including "distress".
Not intuitive is to use ctrl, shift, and alt keys, to subtract from, add
to, and move selection area (ie not move floating layer).
You would have to search the plug-in registry to see what sharpening
algorithms are available.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 1:29:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42F6618B.2060107@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet?

Further to this, does it have adjustment layers yet? You can mock them up
using a normal layer, but it's kind of klunky.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 1:44:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8fqcf1p02qqu6duv6oul7dve8gfqarh54j@4ax.com>,
MJG <martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 7 Aug 2005 12:13:35 -0700, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I'm using version 2.2.8 under Windows<snip>
>
>Cheers Alan that's a helpful summation.
>
>I'm in the early days of usage (ie 2 hours!!) but it seems a very
>capable package.........
>
>Many thanks


Thanks.

I'll add that gimp seems to have a very good scripting capability that
is used by people that need to imbed image manipulation in a larger
application or do repetititive tasks. Having not done anything like
this in PS I'm just repeating what I was told in a demo session on
gimp in a Linux group. It seems that gimp can do if/then logic based
on properties of the image and this is beyond the scripting capability
in PS.

The guy giving the gimp demo said that the gimp code is customized by
Hollywood and used as part of it's workflow for digital movie
production, frame by frame. It's all open source and yours,
if you want to play with it.





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 3:54:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dd7nja$l5t$1@panix5.panix.com>, Al Dykes <adykes@panix.com>
wrote:

> I'll add that gimp seems to have a very good scripting capability that
> is used by people that need to imbed image manipulation in a larger
> application or do repetititive tasks. Having not done anything like
> this in PS I'm just repeating what I was told in a demo session on
> gimp in a Linux group. It seems that gimp can do if/then logic based
> on properties of the image and this is beyond the scripting capability
> in PS.

photoshop can be scripted with visual basic, javascript or applescript.

and for most repetitive tasks, photoshop actions are easy to create and
use - no need for the more powerful scripting.
August 8, 2005 4:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

stefan patric wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:31:23 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark) wrote:
>
>
>>Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp on
>>unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections? I would like to
>>be able to do all work in 16-bit, including on feathered selections. I'm
>>also looking for sharpening filters beyond unsharp mask, which do not
>>actually sharpen, like Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including
>>entering you own oint spread functions).
>
>
> 16-bit support? I was thinking and wanting the same thing and checked
> their web site yesterday, Saturday. No mention of it. So, I assume it's
> still 8-bits internal. Whether it will load and convert a 16-bit (or
> anything greater than 8-bit), I don't know. Don't recall seeing anything
> on The Gimp site about it. So, I'm going to assume, no.

It will convert to 8 bit - and brings up a message to tell you this when
you open a 16 bit tiff.
>
> But I am going to write them and ask for it. 8-bits per color is okay for
> scanning photographs and such, but not film or original digital images.
> And I'd especially like to be able to work on all the data from my
> Canon D30, when I choose to, even if its only 12-bits.
>
It's not a huge deal if you do your colour corrections using your raw
converter, which I guess is a normal workflow. The exception to that is
time wasted editing a raw converted file, if you realise too late that
the colour was not what you wanted. (start again)
More important IMO is support for printer/paper profiles. I know that
plugins are available for this, but I haven't tried any.
Good on you for writing and asking, but I'm sure that the people
involved in developing Gimp are just as aware of this limitation as the
Adobe people are aware of the huge commercial implications to them if
Gimp had 16 bit capability and colour management using profiles.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 3:19:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp
> on unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections?
> I would like to be able to do all work in 16-bit, including
> on feathered selections. I'm also looking for sharpening filters
> beyond unsharp mask, which do not actually sharpen, like
> Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including entering
> you own oint spread functions).
To script any decent image restoration algorithm you need float and
complex-float support, FFTs to do convolutions, all AFAIK not in the gimp. It
is probably doable to call external software which can do the work from the
gimp, but you'd have to write your own compute engine. Or use an existing one.

Hope this helps, Hans
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:41:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

frederick <nomail@nomail.com> writes:

> stefan patric wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:31:23 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to
> > rnclark) wrote:
> >
> >>Does new gimp have 16-bit file support yet? I have used older gimp on
> >>unix machines. Also, does it have feathered selections? I would like to
> >>be able to do all work in 16-bit, including on feathered selections. I'm
> >>also looking for sharpening filters beyond unsharp mask, which do not
> >>actually sharpen, like Richardson-Lucy image rerstoration (including
> >>entering you own oint spread functions).
> > 16-bit support? I was thinking and wanting the same thing and checked
> > their web site yesterday, Saturday. No mention of it. So, I assume it's
> > still 8-bits internal. Whether it will load and convert a 16-bit (or
> > anything greater than 8-bit), I don't know. Don't recall seeing anything
> > on The Gimp site about it. So, I'm going to assume, no.
>
> It will convert to 8 bit - and brings up a message to tell you this when you
> open a 16 bit tiff.
> > But I am going to write them and ask for it. 8-bits per color is okay for
> > scanning photographs and such, but not film or original digital images. And
> > I'd especially like to be able to work on all the data from my
> > Canon D30, when I choose to, even if its only 12-bits.
> >
> It's not a huge deal if you do your colour corrections using your raw
> converter, which I guess is a normal workflow. The exception to that is time
> wasted editing a raw converted file, if you realise too late that the colour
> was not what you wanted. (start again)

UFRaw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/) acts as a plugin to GIMP, and does its
initial transformations in 16-bit, though it has to convert to 8-bit when it
transfers the file to the rest of GIMP.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 8:11:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:57:14 GMT, MJG, <martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com> wrote:
> Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
>
> Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
>
> Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> pro's and con's of this product.

I've had it for years as part of linux, but only started using it at
all in the past few weeks... since getting my camera (dohhh). I don't
know if the Windows documentation is identical to linux. If it is,
start in the middle... Chapter 6 "Working with Digital Camera Photos".

I'm not into the 16-bit-colour routine. The one limitation I've run
into is that while Gimp supports EXIF on JPEG, it does not support EXIF
on TIFF. Well, it's not actually Gimp's fault. Gimp relies on libexif,
which doesn't do any file I/O. It's a library that expects to have
pointers to data structures passed to it. libexif does its thing on the
memory structure and passes back a pointer to the modified result.

libjpeg will properly read/write EXIF data from/to jpeg files, so it
can be used by Gimp. libtiff apparently doesn't support the tag
corresponding to EXIF data; end of story. Since Gimp relies on libtiff
to interact with tiffs, too bad.

I've managed to get Irfan View running under WINE in linux. However,
I find that open-source GQview is "good enough" for me, without the
hassle of pretending that you're running under Windows.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 1:18:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:


> I've managed to get Irfan View running under WINE in linux. However,
> I find that open-source GQview is "good enough" for me, without the
> hassle of pretending that you're running under Windows.


GQview is great.. I've been managing my photo collection with
it for over two years now.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 6:12:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
...
> GQview is great.. I've been managing my photo collection with
> it for over two years now.


Ditto. I love GQview (I use it in Linux all the time).
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 5:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)" <wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> writes:

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:57:14 GMT, MJG, <martin.gilligan@THEDOGntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Just downloaded and installed version 2.2 of the GIMP
> >
> > Didn't fancy shelling out for Photshop and this seems to have all the
> > bells and whistles I could ever want to play with.
> >
> > Any current users of this program care to offer their views on the
> > pro's and con's of this product.
>
> I've had it for years as part of linux, but only started using it at
> all in the past few weeks... since getting my camera (dohhh). I don't
> know if the Windows documentation is identical to linux. If it is,
> start in the middle... Chapter 6 "Working with Digital Camera Photos".
>
> I'm not into the 16-bit-colour routine. The one limitation I've run
> into is that while Gimp supports EXIF on JPEG, it does not support EXIF
> on TIFF. Well, it's not actually Gimp's fault. Gimp relies on libexif,
> which doesn't do any file I/O. It's a library that expects to have
> pointers to data structures passed to it. libexif does its thing on the
> memory structure and passes back a pointer to the modified result.
>
> libjpeg will properly read/write EXIF data from/to jpeg files, so it
> can be used by Gimp. libtiff apparently doesn't support the tag
> corresponding to EXIF data; end of story. Since Gimp relies on libtiff
> to interact with tiffs, too bad.

Exiftool (http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) can decode the EXIF
information in TIFFs and various RAW files, if what you want is to view, copy,
or modify various EXIF fields.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:03:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 10 Aug 2005 13:02:09 -0400, Michael Meissner, <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

> Exiftool (http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) can decode
> the EXIF information in TIFFs and various RAW files, if what you
> want is to view, copy, or modify various EXIF fields.

Thank you very much. My Panasonic FZ5 outputs JPEG and/or TIFF (no
RAW option). A 2560 x 1920 TIFF is 14.5 megabytes... wheee... not
recommended for your average photo site<g>. But if I want to do major
work on a photo, I need the original TIFF, because JPEGs lose detail
with each "generation" of saving. My need is...

- import a 14.5 megabyte TIFF
- work on it
- save it as high-quality JPEG (approx 1 megabyte)
- copy the EXIF data from the original TIFF to the resulting JPEG

The only thing I'm missing is the ability to transfer the EXIF data
from the original TIFF to the resulting JPEG. And exiftool looks like
it'll do that for me.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 4:39:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)" <wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> writes:

> On 10 Aug 2005 13:02:09 -0400, Michael Meissner, <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:
>
> > Exiftool (http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) can decode
> > the EXIF information in TIFFs and various RAW files, if what you
> > want is to view, copy, or modify various EXIF fields.
>
> Thank you very much. My Panasonic FZ5 outputs JPEG and/or TIFF (no
> RAW option). A 2560 x 1920 TIFF is 14.5 megabytes... wheee... not
> recommended for your average photo site<g>. But if I want to do major
> work on a photo, I need the original TIFF, because JPEGs lose detail
> with each "generation" of saving. My need is...
>
> - import a 14.5 megabyte TIFF
> - work on it
> - save it as high-quality JPEG (approx 1 megabyte)
> - copy the EXIF data from the original TIFF to the resulting JPEG
>
> The only thing I'm missing is the ability to transfer the EXIF data
> from the original TIFF to the resulting JPEG. And exiftool looks like
> it'll do that for me.

Yep, I use it that way. My work flow is to edit the initial file from either
JPG or RAW, and then use exiftool to copy the EXIF information from the
original file to the final files, including the small and thumbnail files that
are generated from the large file.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
May 18, 2012 11:17:17 PM

For the people who are use to the PhotoShop interface and is using GIMP, try GIMPshop or GIMPhoto as their interfaces are similar to PhotoSHOp
!