The RAW conversion tools provided by the camera manufacturers are usually pretty basic. Many (if not most) photographers who shoot in RAW use other software for processing their RAW files. I prefer Capture One, but many people like Photoshop's RAW tool.
Re:Does it have a "healing brush"?
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
That page just contains info about the clone tool and selective blurring. Photoshop offers both of those, but also offers the healing brush and spot healing brush. The spot healing brush is invaluable to photographers, especially when scanning film negatives.
>We Europeans see Americans as slightly naive, but it would be kinder to describe your culture as more >willing to investigate what many of us would just ignore.
Check out the replies to my post---I'm definitely NOT sure about it being a compressor vs normalizer. I said that in a knee-jerk response to OP's comment that the dynamic range seemed reduced/compressed overall. Having thought about it, it seems like it would make MUCH more sense for apple to use a simple normalize rather than a much more complex compression algorithm (but I don't know what they're really doing).
>The sound check (which is supposed to equalize the >volume of all the songs) really seems to flatten >the dynamic response of the music.
How exactly would one equalize the volume of all the songs without flattening out the dynamic response? It's a compressor. That's what compressors do--they boost the quiet parts and cut back during the loud parts.
*If* you could get the same effect with a plugin, I'd use it. We're not there yet. I wouldn't be surprised if we could get a convincing emulation of film grain within a few years, but I haven't been impressed with the plugins I've seen so far.
There's also the fact that my Pentax K1000 is more fun to shoot with than my Canon 350D, any day of the week.:-)
I know that was probabl meant as a joke, but I think it's an interesting point. Digital noise is often compared to film grain, and there are certainly similarities. But at an aesthetic level, most people agree the distribution pattern of film grain lends a 'pleasing' effect, whereas the pattern of digital noise tends to be more of a disturbing/distracting effect.
I think it's roughly analogous to the way people prefer the sound of analog distortion vs digital distortion (clipping).
B&W film is generally more tolerant of under and over exposure than digital. Also, many people (myself included) prefer the look you get from film grain vs the digital look.
It's a look you can't really duplicate with digital. There are times where the image I get with digital is just what I want--but film gives you a different palette of options to work with.
Of course, you COULD use other formats other than RAW to store the unprocessed data. It just happens to be the (unfortunate) case that Canon, Nikon, etc all give us the choice of JPG (with all the auto-processing included) or RAW.
If I had the choice of using an open format that gave me the raw data, sure, that'd be better than proprietary RAW formats--but I don't have that choice (yet).
Given that reality, nothing in your post justifies the comment that people use RAW to be "elite". They use it because it's the better of the two options they have available (for their particular workflow, anyway).
>And as to your first comment, you really have got >yourself arse-about-face haven't you? the idea is >that people SHOULD learn how to use their cameras >properly in the first place.
Right. I don't want the camera to focus for me, so I use manual focus. I don't want the camera to decide the exposure for me, so I do it manually. I don't want the camera to determine white-balance etc, for me, either, so I use RAW, rather than JPG. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Btw, I'm not really interested in your masters thesis, Mr. Pompous--I'd be a lot more interested if you managed to produce a good photo.
>The number one reason for RAW formats is that >people feel more 'elite' when they used them, and >purchase the associated large storage media, etc.
Um . . . that's bullshit. Do people who use manual exposure and manual focus do it to feel elite too? That'd make about as much sense.
Here's two big advantages to using the RAW format:
1) You don't have to deal with the camera's attempts to auto-adjust the picture to make it look better (auto-sharpening, auto-contrast, auto-white balance, etc). You have significantly more control over the way the finished picture turns out if you shoot in RAW.
2) RAW gives you a lot of extra latitude in exposure, which is particularly handy since digital sensors are less forgiving of under/over-exposure than 35mm film.
Maybe YOU should take the time to learn the benefits of RAW before throwing attitude . ..
Digital music is hardly a perfect representation of what the artist intended to create. What you get out of a CD may be a perfect representation of what was put ON THE CD, but that's *not* the same thing. The sampling process that goes on during analog to digital conversion inherently results in an imperfect transfer.
Regarding the original statement about tube amps vs. solid state, there's good hard science behind the difference in sounds. It has to do with the harmonic overtones that get added. Put simply, the distortion that tubes add is generally pleasing to the ear. The distortion added by solid state amps is generally much less pleasing.
Everything I've said can be verified by a good audio engineering textbook.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why would GIMP need to do this?
The RAW conversion tools provided by the camera manufacturers are usually pretty basic. Many (if not most) photographers who shoot in RAW use other software for processing their RAW files. I prefer Capture One, but many people like Photoshop's RAW tool.
That page just contains info about the clone tool and selective blurring. Photoshop offers both of those, but also offers the healing brush and spot healing brush. The spot healing brush is invaluable to photographers, especially when scanning film negatives.
>We Europeans see Americans as slightly naive, but it would be kinder to describe your culture as more >willing to investigate what many of us would just ignore.
:-)
Kinder, but less accurate.
Check out the replies to my post---I'm definitely NOT sure about it being a compressor vs normalizer. I said that in a knee-jerk response to OP's comment that the dynamic range seemed reduced/compressed overall. Having thought about it, it seems like it would make MUCH more sense for apple to use a simple normalize rather than a much more complex compression algorithm (but I don't know what they're really doing).
That's a good point. Now that you mention it, it seems sort of odd that they would compress rather than simply normalizing.
>The sound check (which is supposed to equalize the
>volume of all the songs) really seems to flatten
>the dynamic response of the music.
How exactly would one equalize the volume of all the songs without flattening out the dynamic response? It's a compressor. That's what compressors do--they boost the quiet parts and cut back during the loud parts.
Actually, the answer is yes to both questions.
*If* you could get the same effect with a plugin, I'd use it. We're not there yet. I wouldn't be surprised if we could get a convincing emulation of film grain within a few years, but I haven't been impressed with the plugins I've seen so far.
:-)
There's also the fact that my Pentax K1000 is more fun to shoot with than my Canon 350D, any day of the week.
I know that was probabl meant as a joke, but I think it's an interesting point. Digital noise is often compared to film grain, and there are certainly similarities. But at an aesthetic level, most people agree the distribution pattern of film grain lends a 'pleasing' effect, whereas the pattern of digital noise tends to be more of a disturbing/distracting effect.
I think it's roughly analogous to the way people prefer the sound of analog distortion vs digital distortion (clipping).
B&W film is generally more tolerant of under and over exposure than digital. Also, many people (myself included) prefer the look you get from film grain vs the digital look.
As an example, here's a photo I took with T-Max 3200 speed b&w film:
http://www.nobear.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=678
It's a look you can't really duplicate with digital. There are times where the image I get with digital is just what I want--but film gives you a different palette of options to work with.
Of course, you COULD use other formats other than RAW to store the unprocessed data. It just happens to be the (unfortunate) case that Canon, Nikon, etc all give us the choice of JPG (with all the auto-processing included) or RAW.
If I had the choice of using an open format that gave me the raw data, sure, that'd be better than proprietary RAW formats--but I don't have that choice (yet).
Given that reality, nothing in your post justifies the comment that people use RAW to be "elite". They use it because it's the better of the two options they have available (for their particular workflow, anyway).
>And as to your first comment, you really have got
>yourself arse-about-face haven't you? the idea is
>that people SHOULD learn how to use their cameras
>properly in the first place.
Right. I don't want the camera to focus for me, so I use manual focus. I don't want the camera to decide the exposure for me, so I do it manually. I don't want the camera to determine white-balance etc, for me, either, so I use RAW, rather than JPG. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Btw, I'm not really interested in your masters thesis, Mr. Pompous--I'd be a lot more interested if you managed to produce a good photo.
IRA
>The number one reason for RAW formats is that
.
>people feel more 'elite' when they used them, and
>purchase the associated large storage media, etc.
Um . . . that's bullshit. Do people who use manual exposure and manual focus do it to feel elite too? That'd make about as much sense.
Here's two big advantages to using the RAW format:
1) You don't have to deal with the camera's attempts to auto-adjust the picture to make it look better (auto-sharpening, auto-contrast, auto-white balance, etc). You have significantly more control over the way the finished picture turns out if you shoot in RAW.
2) RAW gives you a lot of extra latitude in exposure, which is particularly handy since digital sensors are less forgiving of under/over-exposure than 35mm film.
Maybe YOU should take the time to learn the benefits of RAW before throwing attitude . .
IRA
What would be the best way to illustrate what a software engineer does to a group of primary school kids?
How's this different from trying to explain to a group of managers what a software engineers 'does'?
Digital music is hardly a perfect representation of what the artist intended to create. What you get out of a CD may be a perfect representation of what was put ON THE CD, but that's *not* the same thing. The sampling process that goes on during analog to digital conversion inherently results in an imperfect transfer.
Regarding the original statement about tube amps vs. solid state, there's good hard science behind the difference in sounds. It has to do with the harmonic overtones that get added. Put simply, the distortion that tubes add is generally pleasing to the ear. The distortion added by solid state amps is generally much less pleasing.
Everything I've said can be verified by a good audio engineering textbook.
IRA