From davidvj at verizon.net Wed Oct 1 21:35:46 2008 From: davidvj at verizon.net (David Vincent-Jones) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Problems in Rawstudio current Daily Cut In-Reply-To: <1222715345.23713.5.camel@smutogtab> References: <48E12207.9070506@orange.fr> <1222715345.23713.5.camel@smutogtab> Message-ID: <1222889746.6709.15.camel@david-laptop> Program crash while using sharpen: This occurs in a couple of instances. 1.) Copy settings including sharpen set around 1.9 ... and 2.) Just applying sharpening set around the same value. Intermittently I am also seeing data 'pixelation' ... I am having problems determining exactly when this occurs but it is seen when the * (zoom to 100) also fails to work. (Looks like a 400% zoom) I find that 'Save' is a bit of a nuisance/problem: 1.) I would like to save in 16 bit png rather than tif. 2.) Save As should remove the raw file type nomenclature before inserting the save-type. ie. myfile.tif not myfile.raw.tif. David From linuxguy123 at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 05:28:43 2008 From: linuxguy123 at gmail.com (Linuxguy123) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:28:43 -0400 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio rocks. Almost. Message-ID: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> I just downloaded and built rawstudio 1.1 on my Fedora 8 box. Kudos to the team for bringing it to life. I've been using ufraw for ages in combination with gqview. Its a painful way to work with raw images because the viewing and manipulating of the images isn't coordinated. I've been looking for something better for a long time. I love the way rawstudio mimics Adobe Lightroom. I've considered buying Lightroom several times, but it doesn't run on Linux. And of course it isn't open source. But I have always liked the layout and workflow of it. Its nice to see that rawstudio incorporated its basic concepts. Unfortunately, rawstudio doesn't work particularly well for me. I'm not sure if I am missing how its supposed to work or if it needs a bit more development. Nevertheless, here are my issues: #1) When an image is selected and placed in the main editing window, it needs a lot of adjustment to get near the final product. In ufraw one can select between using the camera settings for the parameters or one can save a set of parameters and they get applied to every image that is worked on. I don't see how to do that with rawstudio and thus the images require a lot of adjustment to get to the final product. Its interesting that the small images in the library view bar have pretty good image parameters and are much closer to the final product and thus would be a good starting point for displaying the image in the main editing window. #2) The image adjuster sliders are quite coarse and finicky at least on my computer with my 40D images. For example, the tint slider moves from -2.0 to 2.0. I question if such a wide range is really needed. I don't need anything nearly that wide. The wide range of adjustment leads to finicky operation of the sliders. A single mouse wheel click on my system is 0.20, which is pretty coarse. To get finer adjustment than that, I have to use the mouse pointer to adjust the slider and that is a pretty finicky operation, especially when it needs to be done for just about every image parameter. Between 1) and 2), it just takes too long to get every image adjusted to the final settings it needs. I wonder if the parameter numbers on the left of the sliders could be made into text edit boxes with up/down arrows for fine tuning. ufraw does this and it seems to work pretty well. #3) I need a white balance spot selector. Ufraw has a good whitebalance spot selector whereby one can select a spot as gray and then use it to adjust the white balance for the rest of the image. I often shoot gray cards and use them to calibrate the white balance on my images. I find that this single adjustment can make the most incredible difference on an otherwise correctly adjusted image. I look forward to feedback on my issues. Please don't take my comments as negative criticism of rawstudio. I am very happy and excited to see what a great application rawstudio will be with just a few tweaks. In any event, keep up the good work. I am available for testing should the team want my further input during the develop process. LG From davidvj at verizon.net Sat Oct 4 10:55:00 2008 From: davidvj at verizon.net (David Vincent-Jones) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:55:00 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio rocks. Almost. In-Reply-To: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1223110500.6477.15.camel@david-laptop> Comments on your # 3 On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 23:28 -0400, Linuxguy123 wrote: > I just downloaded and built rawstudio 1.1 on my Fedora 8 box. Kudos to > the team for bringing it to life. > > I've been using ufraw for ages in combination with gqview. Its a > painful way to work with raw images because the viewing and manipulating > of the images isn't coordinated. I've been looking for something better > for a long time. > > I love the way rawstudio mimics Adobe Lightroom. I've considered buying > Lightroom several times, but it doesn't run on Linux. And of course it > isn't open source. But I have always liked the layout and workflow of > it. Its nice to see that rawstudio incorporated its basic concepts. > > Unfortunately, rawstudio doesn't work particularly well for me. I'm > not sure if I am missing how its supposed to work or if it needs a bit > more development. Nevertheless, here are my issues: > > #1) When an image is selected and placed in the main editing window, it > needs a lot of adjustment to get near the final product. > > In ufraw one can select between using the camera settings for the > parameters or one can save a set of parameters and they get applied to > every image that is worked on. I don't see how to do that with > rawstudio and thus the images require a lot of adjustment to get to the > final product. > > Its interesting that the small images in the library view bar have > pretty good image parameters and are much closer to the final product > and thus would be a good starting point for displaying the image in the > main editing window. > > #2) The image adjuster sliders are quite coarse and finicky at least on > my computer with my 40D images. For example, the tint slider moves from > -2.0 to 2.0. I question if such a wide range is really needed. I > don't need anything nearly that wide. > > The wide range of adjustment leads to finicky operation of the > sliders. > > A single mouse wheel click on my system is 0.20, which is pretty coarse. > To get finer adjustment than that, I have to use the mouse pointer to > adjust the slider and that is a pretty finicky operation, especially > when it needs to be done for just about every image parameter. > > Between 1) and 2), it just takes too long to get every image adjusted to > the final settings it needs. > > I wonder if the parameter numbers on the left of the sliders could be > made into text edit boxes with up/down arrows for fine tuning. ufraw > does this and it seems to work pretty well. > > #3) I need a white balance spot selector. Ufraw has a good whitebalance > spot selector whereby one can select a spot as gray and then use it to > adjust the white balance for the rest of the image. I often shoot gray > cards and use them to calibrate the white balance on my images. I find > that this single adjustment can make the most incredible difference on > an otherwise correctly adjusted image. I also have been used to using the 'eye-dropper' to achieve a color correction ( although I do not usually shoot with a gray card) .. however I am now finding that simply using the warm/cool slider so that the red and blue histograms are matched closely provides a very fast alternative that suits me even more. The histogram in RS is a real winner. > > I look forward to feedback on my issues. Please don't take my comments > as negative criticism of rawstudio. I am very happy and excited to see > what a great application rawstudio will be with just a few tweaks. > > In any event, keep up the good work. I am available for testing should > the team want my further input during the develop process. > > LG > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rawstudio-users mailing list > Rawstudio-users at rawstudio.org > http://rawstudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rawstudio-users From david at kenpro.com.au Sat Oct 4 14:42:40 2008 From: david at kenpro.com.au (david) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:42:40 +1000 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio rocks. Almost. In-Reply-To: <1223110500.6477.15.camel@david-laptop> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1223110500.6477.15.camel@david-laptop> Message-ID: <48E764C0.1070501@kenpro.com.au> I have both UFraw and Rawstudio installed, and I hardly ever use UFraw because the workflow sucks. I'm sure there are other factors for those who are more expert than me. > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 23:28 -0400, Linuxguy123 wrote: >> >> #1) When an image is selected and placed in the main editing window, it >> needs a lot of adjustment to get near the final product. >> >> In ufraw one can select between using the camera settings for the >> parameters or one can save a set of parameters and they get applied to >> every image that is worked on. I don't see how to do that with >> rawstudio and thus the images require a lot of adjustment to get to the >> final product. >> >> Its interesting that the small images in the library view bar have >> pretty good image parameters and are much closer to the final product >> and thus would be a good starting point for displaying the image in the >> main editing window. >> >> #2) The image adjuster sliders are quite coarse and finicky at least on I agree.... .a numeric box would give much finer control if needed. Mostly it works for me but sometimes I like to be fussy and the slider isn't sensitive enough. >> #3) I need a white balance spot selector. Ufraw has a good whitebalance >> spot selector whereby one can select a spot as gray and then use it to >> adjust the white balance for the rest of the image. I often shoot gray >> cards and use them to calibrate the white balance on my images. I find >> that this single adjustment can make the most incredible difference on >> an otherwise correctly adjusted image. I thought you could already do that just by clicking on an appropriate part of the image. To revert to the camera's white balance, you just press "C" on the keyboard. > I also have been used to using the 'eye-dropper' to achieve a color > correction ( although I do not usually shoot with a gray card) .. > however I am now finding that simply using the warm/cool slider so that > the red and blue histograms are matched closely provides a very fast > alternative that suits me even more. The histogram in RS is a real > winner. That trick with the histogram is really interesting .. I didn't notice that before... well done. If any one else has any good ideas, please let us know!!! From linuxguy123 at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 18:33:57 2008 From: linuxguy123 at gmail.com (Linuxguy123) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio rocks. Almost. In-Reply-To: <1223110500.6477.15.camel@david-laptop> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1223110500.6477.15.camel@david-laptop> Message-ID: <1223138037.29305.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 10:55 +0200, David Vincent-Jones wrote: > > #3) I need a white balance spot selector. Ufraw has a good whitebalance > > spot selector whereby one can select a spot as gray and then use it to > > adjust the white balance for the rest of the image. I often shoot gray > > cards and use them to calibrate the white balance on my images. I find > > that this single adjustment can make the most incredible difference on > > an otherwise correctly adjusted image. > I also have been used to using the 'eye-dropper' to achieve a color > correction ( although I do not usually shoot with a gray card) .. > however I am now finding that simply using the warm/cool slider so that > the red and blue histograms are matched closely provides a very fast > alternative that suits me even more. The histogram in RS is a real > winner. I agree, I love the histogram. Great work there. But I don't think balancing the histogram is going to give me what I need to get the whitebalance right in all my shots. The WB sustem in ufraw is very good. I can consistently get pictures to look great with it, with a minimum of fussing. The thing I like doing is to correct the WB on a gray card shot and then use that setting for the rest of the shots in that environment. I've compared my best "by eye" settings with those obtained with this method and the gray card wins almost every time. Its really nice that ufraw has the color temp displayed and adjustable. That is a nice way to correct things because you can compare your value with the camera color temp and it also makes it easy to tweak images for print or for computer display. I like the images I send to my local printer to have the color temp bumped about 200K. Its an easy, sure fire, one step way to adjust the images for printing. I actually adjust the exposure about 1/3 stop brighter too. They don't look right on the screen this way, but they print up really nice. From linuxguy123 at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 18:43:46 2008 From: linuxguy123 at gmail.com (Linuxguy123) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:43:46 -0400 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio rocks. Almost. In-Reply-To: <48E764C0.1070501@kenpro.com.au> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1223110500.6477.15.camel@david-laptop> <48E764C0.1070501@kenpro.com.au> Message-ID: <1223138626.29305.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 22:42 +1000, david wrote: > I have both UFraw and Rawstudio installed, and I hardly ever use UFraw because > the workflow sucks. I agree. ufraw works great at what it does, but its a pain to use for hundreds of images. I usually run ufraw-batch from the command line and then just correct the images that are going to be printed. If someone could put the image controls from ufraw into raw studio, it would be a winner by knockout. It seems to me that rawstudio has been modeled on lightshow. And there is nothing wrong with that. But I think that lightshow has been dumbed down a bit from what it could be, either to make it easier to use for less experienced people or because Adobe didn't want it cutting into the sales of its other products. Maybe rawstudio needs the choice of 2 panels on the right hand side, a traditional panel that does what its doing now and an advanced panel that is more like ufraw. I've processed a lot of really bad images with ufraw. Its almost shocking how wrong the image can be and how good one can get it to look using ufraw. The other tool I really like is the levels tool in GIMP. I don't mean to knock either ufraw or rawstudio. Both are good efforts. But I think that both could learn something from the other. Aside: between finding rawstudio and the release of GIMP 2.6, its been quite a week for open source imaging tools. Thanks for listening. From cdsmith80 at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 21:03:32 2008 From: cdsmith80 at gmail.com (Christopher Smith) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:03:32 -0400 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio rocks. Almost. In-Reply-To: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1223147012.22044.20.camel@localhost> > #1) When an image is selected and placed in the main editing window, it > needs a lot of adjustment to get near the final product. > > In ufraw one can select between using the camera settings for the > parameters or one can save a set of parameters and they get applied to > every image that is worked on. I don't see how to do that with > rawstudio and thus the images require a lot of adjustment to get to the > final product. First you can click on any part of an image and it will adjust the white balance accordingly. Second, you can copy the current settings of any edit you make. Check Edit->Copy Settings. > Its interesting that the small images in the library view bar have > pretty good image parameters and are much closer to the final product > and thus would be a good starting point for displaying the image in the > main editing window. Pressing "A" to get auto white balance settings generally gives me a pretty good starting point. Pressing "C" is supposed to give you the camera settings. > #2) The image adjuster sliders are quite coarse and finicky at least on > my computer with my 40D images. For example, the tint slider moves from > -2.0 to 2.0. I question if such a wide range is really needed. I > don't need anything nearly that wide. Agreed. > The wide range of adjustment leads to finicky operation of the > sliders. > > A single mouse wheel click on my system is 0.20, which is pretty coarse. > To get finer adjustment than that, I have to use the mouse pointer to > adjust the slider and that is a pretty finicky operation, especially > when it needs to be done for just about every image parameter. Even with the mouse slider issue I still find it much faster getting to a final image with Rawstudio than something like Raw Therapee. > Between 1) and 2), it just takes too long to get every image adjusted to > the final settings it needs. > > I wonder if the parameter numbers on the left of the sliders could be > made into text edit boxes with up/down arrows for fine tuning. ufraw > does this and it seems to work pretty well. That sounds like a good idea to me, but I think the slider should be fixed to give finer grain control also. > #3) I need a white balance spot selector. Ufraw has a good whitebalance > spot selector whereby one can select a spot as gray and then use it to > adjust the white balance for the rest of the image. I often shoot gray > cards and use them to calibrate the white balance on my images. I find > that this single adjustment can make the most incredible difference on > an otherwise correctly adjusted image. Like I mentioned before I believe this is done by clicking on any area of the photograph. It definitely alters the white balance but I cannot find any documentation on it. Perhaps it is not entirely accurate. > I look forward to feedback on my issues. Please don't take my comments > as negative criticism of rawstudio. I am very happy and excited to see > what a great application rawstudio will be with just a few tweaks. > > In any event, keep up the good work. I am available for testing should > the team want my further input during the develop process. > > LG I am just another Rawstudio user but I thought I would give my two cents. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rawstudio.org/pipermail/rawstudio-users/attachments/20081004/34f505fc/attachment.pgp From davidvj at verizon.net Mon Oct 6 13:40:00 2008 From: davidvj at verizon.net (David Vincent-Jones) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:40:00 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] File Saving In-Reply-To: <1223147012.22044.20.camel@localhost> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1223147012.22044.20.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1223293200.6260.14.camel@david-laptop> I am using the 'daily svn 2057', despite having tried a roll-back to 1.1 and note that: Exporting to PNG and JPG do not show identical end results. Export to 16 bit TIF is a write-off (may have a massive gamma shift) After 12 or so corrections just touching the 'sharpen' slider causes the program to shut down. A program restart does not help but a system restart allows me to continue. (May be a garbage collection problem) I am sure a fix is on the way! David From anders at brander.dk Sun Oct 12 22:39:25 2008 From: anders at brander.dk (Anders Brander) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:39:25 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio 1.1.1 released Message-ID: <1223843965.6030.14.camel@video64> Hi! Rawstudio 1.1.1 was released today to fix a few bugs in release 1.1. Fixed since release 1.1: Bug #221: Program crash if click the button of the main menu "Remove from batch queue". Bug #222: The menu button "Remove from batch queue" it is necessary disable if the current RAW is not present in batch queue. Bug #223: The icon in the main menu button "Start" and in button "Start" on tab "Batch" differs. Bug #227: contrast and wb values are not read from .xml in 1.1. Bug #230: The menu button "Add to batch queue" it is necessary disable if current RAW is present at queue. Download: http://rawstudio.org/files/release/rawstudio-1.1.1.tar.gz Enjoy! /abrander From davidvj at verizon.net Mon Oct 13 18:33:48 2008 From: davidvj at verizon.net (David Vincent-Jones) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:33:48 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] File Saving (again) In-Reply-To: <1223293200.6260.14.camel@david-laptop> References: <1223004523.24302.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1223147012.22044.20.camel@localhost> <1223293200.6260.14.camel@david-laptop> Message-ID: <1223915628.6554.6.camel@david-laptop> Latest test on file 'Exports' with 'Daily 2060': Save to PNG looks good but saving to 16 bit TIF needs a Gamma shift in Cinepaint from neutral at 1.0 to 2.5 or 2.6 on order to look like the PNG. Is there something that I am not understanding here? David From davidvj at verizon.net Tue Oct 14 11:25:24 2008 From: davidvj at verizon.net (David Vincent-Jones) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:25:24 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Rawstudio 1.1.1 released In-Reply-To: <1223843965.6030.14.camel@video64> References: <1223843965.6030.14.camel@video64> Message-ID: <1223976324.6498.36.camel@david-laptop> Earlier today I indicated problems with the recent 'Daily' and now I have installed 1.1.1 to compare the situation. I am still having the same problem saving to 16 bit tif .... When I save as a PNG the results are 'as predicted' but the 16 bit TIF is totally out of whack. When I take the TIF into Cinepaint the highs and lows appear to be correctly placed, the color tone also fine but I need to move the Gamma slider from the neutral position to about 2.5 to get some sort of a match with the same image saved as a 8 bit PNG. Am I doing something drastically wrong? Incendentally .. is the histogram width based on 16 bits? David On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 22:39 +0200, Anders Brander wrote: > Hi! > > Rawstudio 1.1.1 was released today to fix a few bugs in release 1.1. > > Fixed since release 1.1: > Bug #221: Program crash if click the button of the main menu "Remove > from batch queue". > Bug #222: The menu button "Remove from batch queue" it is necessary > disable if the current RAW is not present in batch queue. > Bug #223: The icon in the main menu button "Start" and in button "Start" > on tab "Batch" differs. > Bug #227: contrast and wb values are not read from .xml in 1.1. > Bug #230: The menu button "Add to batch queue" it is necessary disable > if current RAW is present at queue. > > Download: > http://rawstudio.org/files/release/rawstudio-1.1.1.tar.gz > > Enjoy! > > /abrander > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rawstudio-users mailing list > Rawstudio-users at rawstudio.org > http://rawstudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rawstudio-users From jarno.ilari.suni at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 13:12:48 2008 From: jarno.ilari.suni at gmail.com (Jarno Suni) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:12:48 +0300 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Metadata missing after development Message-ID: <20081024141248.2a911b48@laptop> Currently jpeg is the only output format of Rawstudio daily that keeps (all?) Exif info. Even that misses IPTC and XMP (?) info possibly added by a photo management software. Would it be hard to make Rawstudio retain metadata? (I have DNG source files.) -- Jarno Suni - http://iki.fi/8/ Ole hyv? ja k?yt? XHTML-yhteensopivaa WWW-selainta. Please use a XHTML compliant web browser. From rob_k at arcor.de Fri Oct 24 13:59:51 2008 From: rob_k at arcor.de (Robert Kozlowski) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:59:51 +0200 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Sharpening Message-ID: <4901B8B7.6050307@arcor.de> Hello list! If I want to sharpen my outputs in GIMP, shall i not 'sharpen' them in Rawstudio? And what settings Rawstudio uses actually? Is the slider "Sharpen" the same like "Amount" in GIMP's Unsharp Mask or what is it in detail? Thanks for your replies, Robert From jarno.ilari.suni at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 17:25:27 2008 From: jarno.ilari.suni at gmail.com (Jarno Suni) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] Sharpening References: <4901B8B7.6050307@arcor.de> Message-ID: <20081024182527.4bc4e731@laptop> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:59:51 +0200 Robert Kozlowski wrote: > If I want to sharpen my outputs in GIMP, shall i not 'sharpen' them in > Rawstudio? You don't need to sharpen in Rawstudio then. Usually you should do sharpening as the final editing taks before saving a file, if yo? sharpen at all. -- Jarno Suni - http://iki.fi/8/ Ole hyv? ja k?yt? XHTML-yhteensopivaa WWW-selainta. Please use a XHTML compliant web browser. From zeidoo at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 16:27:31 2008 From: zeidoo at gmail.com (Cristian Constantinescu) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Rawstudio-users] EXIF and Camera Setting Message-ID: <60a1c8570810300827w182cbc3bge46ab43090b2394b@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, I've started playing around with RawStudio 1.1.1 the other day, and I can't see to figure out a couple of things. Maybe someone can help me. - Camera settings: I've did some searching into the mailinglist archive and I've seen some posts asking for the camera settings being set when previewing a picture. And from what I have read, that is only available for the white balance. Thing is, if I look at the picture in ViewNX it looks great, in RawStudio the colors are way off. Is it because my camera (Nikon D80) isn't calibrated properly and RawStudio gets confused? I'm not sure how to handle this problem. - EXIF information: I'm not sure where to view this information. Is there an option to view this in RawStudio or is this info viewable only when we export the image? - Help Files: Anyone knows if there are any help files around? Anyhow, I'd like to thank everyone who made this program happen. It's simply awesome! Have a great day! '?' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rawstudio.org/pipermail/rawstudio-users/attachments/20081030/24dffb35/attachment.htm