GIMP and RAW

Hi,

Does anyone here use GIMP to process RAW files? Is it even possible? I'm going on a once-in-a-lifetime trip this spring (Inca Trail and Manchu Pichu) and was thinking I should shoot RAW+JPG (normally I only shoot JPG). I don't do a lot of PP and GIMP has met my needs so far. Is there a RAW converter plugin that I would need?

Thanks!

Shelli

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shellidawn/

I used to use gimp - linux user, and its pretty efficient as opposed to what I have seen of it on same hardware under windows.

However there are plugins such as dcraw front ends, and ufraw (my more preferred if importing directly)... however I would say kick it to touch and use it for what it is meant for - manipulation.

I would suggest you look into rawtherapee process to full quality jpg and then load into gimp, or command line process in batch. RT appears to be getting more an more impressive with each release.

Of course - you might hate it - but it works for me

UFRaw is the official RAW converter which integrates with the GIMP. See http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/ . If you open a RAW image from the GIMP, UFRaw will be launched automatically once it has been installed.

You can use any RAW converter you like to process RAW images into a format the GIMP can process. You will need to run a separate process to do the conversion before transferring the images to the GIMP if you do not use UFRaw.

And take the time to shoot 20 - 30 raw + jpg images and process them on whatever software you have decided to use BEFORE you go on your trip.

You may decide that you don't want to shoot raw or you may decide to forego jpg, or you may decide that with the new format, you don't like the tools you used to really love.

You really don't want to be experimenting in the middle of a once in a lifetime trip.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/

Shelli,

From almost any Olympus Raw files, both UFRAW and Raw Therapy create ugly maze patterns in your pictures.
All Olympus SLRs, except for the E-410 and E-510, deliver excellent JPG images.
I completely gave up on RAWs.

Best Regards, Herbert

--
http://www.pbase.com/herbRD

Olympus E-330, Vario-Elmar 14-150mm, Summilux 1.4/25mm, Sony H1, Sony S600, Olympus C-2020 (IR)

LaMesa said:

From almost any Olympus Raw files, both UFRAW and Raw Therapy create
ugly maze patterns in your pictures.

Click to expand...

Never seen anything like that.

LaMesa said:

All Olympus SLRs, except for the E-410 and E-510, deliver excellent
JPG images.

Click to expand...

Very much so, however, I cannot agree on the statement about the JPEG's from the E510. I own one and I am generally pleased with the results.

LaMesa said:

I completely gave up on RAWs.

Click to expand...

I on the contrary switched to RAW for the cases where the results with JPEG's where not so good. E.g with covered skies you can sometimes recover more from overblown highlights.

UFRAW and GIMP make for a pleasant combination, however you also need something to recover EXIF as UFRAW is not able to save these from ORF into the JPEG. I use exiftool for that, but it is intimidating and took me some time to get at ease with.

HTH
--
Menno H.

http://www.pbase.com/mennoh

mennoh said:

Very much so, however, I cannot agree on the statement about the
JPEG's from the E510. I own one and I am generally pleased with the
results.

Click to expand...

My camera is also an E-510, and the JPEGs seem pretty good to me (I have it set to highest quality).

mennoh said:

I on the contrary switched to RAW for the cases where the results
with JPEG's where not so good. E.g with covered skies you can
sometimes recover more from overblown highlights.

Click to expand...

I shoot using JPEG + RAW. There is no compelling reason not to, even if I never touch the RAW files again. I think of RAW as the original "negative" and the out of camera JPEG as Olympus' version of the "print". If I want to adjust the image it is easier to do so starting from the RAW (negative) than the JPEG (print).

You are stuck with an 8 bit per channel image from JPEG and an unknown amount and type of spurious image artefacts. Working from a lossy low-fidelity format just seems daft unless you have to.

mennoh said:

UFRAW and GIMP make for a pleasant combination, however you also need
something to recover EXIF as UFRAW is not able to save these from ORF
into the JPEG. I use exiftool for that, but it is intimidating and
took me some time to get at ease with.

Click to expand...

There is nothing that does as good a job as Olympus Master / Studio at RAW conversion. I would convert from RAW to 48-bit TIFF in Oly Master then work on the TIFF.

(I have not settled on a good tool for image adjustment as yet - Adobe probably has the best available, but the cost is pretty crippling for a minor amount of amateur image fiddling. When GIMP gets to 48-bit support I'll definitely be trying it out.)

Thanks to all for the responses/suggestions.

My camera is a 510 and I've been pretty happy with the JPGs that come out of it. I've had some pretty good pictures come out of the camera, so I know it's possible. Any issues with the pictures I attribute to operator error as I'm still a beginner.

I was planning on taking RAW+JPG for those cases where I got it wrong and could possibly make it better by working on the RAW file.

I'd forgotten Oy Master does the conversion (duh!), but I rarely use it since I find it to be a rather flaky program - it likes to crash for no reason at all. However it seems that both rawtherapee and UFRaw lose the exif data for ORF files. Maybe I'll to give Master another shot.

boggis the cat said:

(I have not settled on a good tool for image adjustment as yet - Adobe probably has the best available, but the cost is pretty crippling for a minor amount of amateur image fiddling. When GIMP gets to 48-bit support I'll definitely be trying it out.)

Click to expand...

Part of the reason I use GIMP is because its free, so it totally fits in my budget!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shellidawn/

Count me in with those who think the E510 jpegs can be quite good. But then I didn't give up on it after only a month and despite owning an E3, my E510 is the camera of choice with my Sigma 50-500mm because it's more comfortable to use with that lens. I shoot raw+jpeg with both and I don't rely on the raw for any less ratio of all photos with the E3. The E3 has only one stop more of DR in jpeg if the E510 is set up right and many of my photos are within the DR capability of either camera or quite beyond the capability of both. I process my jpegs from both cameras in conjunction with particular jpeg settings in camera to get the best results. I don't have any controlled comparisons to show but below is some real world shots (both jpegs), one with the E3 and 50-200mm at 200mm and the other the E510 with Sigma 50-500mm at 335 mm taken 3 minutes apart. I've cropped the E3 photo to make them about the same size in the frame but at this presentation size that won't make any noticeable difference in IQ and the 50-200mm is a better lens than the 50-500mm too so the Sigma lens haters out there will surely say that this amount of cropping won't make a difference. This was tricky lighting and neither camera was capable of capturing all the DR. The photos are the same subject from different sides of the pole. And yes it's the same pole. The more weathered side has had all the summer sun and also the wind for many years and this was taken close to where I've lived for 6 years so I know where the sun usually is and which way the wind usually blows. Neither is as sharp as the cameras and lenses are actually capable of, the poor light responsible for that I guess, but if anyone can point out the magical properties of the E3's jpeg engine that make it the obvious choice over the pitiful E510 jpeg engine, should be fairly easy to judge which camera took which photo here, I'd appreciatte it because I think there's something wrong with me (besides what I'm already aware of) as I've never been able to tell the difference between my jpegs from either camera, have to look at the exif data if I forget which camera I used for a photo. There are indeed subtle differences between these two photos but overall they are just different compromises of several individual parameters of presentation IQ and it looks to me like DR capture ability is not one of them. Neither responds to attempts to bring back the blown highlights in raw, although I want to try some other programs for that. My resources are limited for working with raw images because I just don't often need it with the E510 which I've used for a year now.





I know I could do some properly controlled testing and make a case for the E3 being the better jpeg camera but out in the real world, they become a lot closer in results than those who have not used both assume.

I think the E510 was not given a chance by LaMesa. It is a very cranky camera but it is very capable when set up and used the right way.

The E300 which LaMesa exchanged the E510 for, I can't criticize that choice. Certainly it's easier to get good results from in regards to expousre and can produce a tonality in jpegs that more recent Olympus camaeras are hard pressed to duplicate even with post processing. It is one of a few that I am trying to decide upon for the times I use the tripod at low ISO for my telephoto work and some types of landscapes. I can't explain the differences I see but I know what I like. And I do like variety, a choice from a group of excellent options, moody fellow that I am. I rely on IS for the majority of my photos and I sometimes really do need all 10 mp, sometimes would like more, so none of the older cameras would be suitable for my everday use.

I'm glad LaMesa is happy with her E300 but one month use with the E510 and never having used an E520 or E3 is IMO, not quite the qualifications necessary to claim the E410 and E510 are so inferior that they should be excluded from the E series as good choices of cameras to own and use. There are a few photographers I follow, among the best in these forums, and elsewhere on the internet who use E510s and interestingly, of all the Olympus photographers I follow the E510 is the most common camera used. Sure they rely on the raw quite often but occasionally opening up a raw and making a few mouse clicks, as I do, is hardly a burden.

My E510 will get used until it either falls apart in my hands or the shutter fails or they produce an upgrade with more mp and no degradation in noise/detail compared to the E510.

Seriously, Olympus had profiled pros (the type who prefer to travel with a small light camera) who use the E510 so how bad can it really be? Based on my experience with it and results from others, not as bad as some people say it is.

LaMesa said:

Shelli,

From almost any Olympus Raw files, both UFRAW and Raw Therapy create
ugly maze patterns in your pictures.
All Olympus SLRs, except for the E-410 and E-510, deliver excellent
JPG images.
I completely gave up on RAWs.

Click to expand...

Typically for RAW converters that draw their inspiration from dcraw, you need to use the VNG 4 color conversion instead of the default for Olympus cameras. Evidently, the two green sensors are somewhat different on Olympus unlike other cameras.

ShelliDawn said:

Thanks to all for the responses/suggestions.

My camera is a 510 and I've been pretty happy with the JPGs that come
out of it. I've had some pretty good pictures come out of the
camera, so I know it's possible. Any issues with the pictures I
attribute to operator error as I'm still a beginner.

I was planning on taking RAW+JPG for those cases where I got it wrong
and could possibly make it better by working on the RAW file.

I'd forgotten Oy Master does the conversion (duh!), but I rarely use
it since I find it to be a rather flaky program - it likes to crash
for no reason at all. However it seems that both rawtherapee and
UFRaw lose the exif data for ORF files. Maybe I'll to give
Master another shot.

Click to expand...

You can copy EXIF information from one JPG/ORF file to another using exiftool if you normal photo editor strips it off:
http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

Yesterday I tried Raw Therapee v2.4 beta4 and both the default and VNG4 colour conversion seem to work fine. I shoot jpeg, but I decided to try RAW for a day. In this case the highlight recovery offered in Raw Therapee did make for an improvement - it managed to tone down an overexposed highlight and made it a little less intrusive (result at http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaltrails/3281120572/ )

I think I may use RAW or RAW+jpeg in difficult lighting conditions, but I'll mainly stick with jpeg.

Michael Meissner said:

LaMesa said:

Shelli,

From almost any Olympus Raw files, both UFRAW and Raw Therapy create
ugly maze patterns in your pictures.
All Olympus SLRs, except for the E-410 and E-510, deliver excellent
JPG images.
I completely gave up on RAWs.

Click to expand...

Typically for RAW converters that draw their inspiration from dcraw,
you need to use the VNG 4 color conversion instead of the default for
Olympus cameras. Evidently, the two green sensors are somewhat
different on Olympus unlike other cameras.

Click to expand...

wmsson,

I agree with you that the E-3 JPEG characteristics are comparable to those of the E-510 and quite different from the E-1 and others. For that reason I personally would add the E-3 to my choice of less favoured JPG cameras. This is not about DR in the first place, but about a certain brown-to-black colour cast, more pronounced in the dark areas. For that reason I parted with my E-510.
Best Regards, Herbert
--
http://www.pbase.com/herbRD

Olympus E-330, Vario-Elmar 14-150mm, Summilux 1.4/25mm, Sony H1, Sony S600, Olympus C-2020 (IR)

I would like to apologize for my negative posts. Let me make it clear that I am talking about personal preferences. And I also have to say that the E-510 is a camera with excellent features. I wish I still had that powerful image stabilisation.
Herbert
--
http://www.pbase.com/herbRD

Olympus E-330, Vario-Elmar 14-150mm, Summilux 1.4/25mm, Sony H1, Sony S600, Olympus C-2020 (IR)

Raw Therapee 2.4 retains exif info. The image quoted in my previous post seems to have carried the exif info from ORF, through Raw Therapee, through the Gimp and then onto flickr. I don't know whether it's all there, but at a glance any thing I normally expect to see is present.

ShelliDawn said:

...
for no reason at all. However it seems that both rawtherapee and
UFRaw lose the exif data for ORF files. Maybe I'll to give
Master another shot.

Click to expand...

I also process my photos on Linux. I started with Gimp and UFRaw, but eventually moved to Bibble.

GIMP/UFraw is fine when you're working with one image at a time. However, I tend to shoot a hundred or so and then want to go through them. With Bibble, you can rank, edit, and batch convert. I understand there are other tools out there that can do this as well

Working with RAW in a workflow tool is just as easy as JPEG, and much easier than working with either in 'one at a time" mode.

Bibble isn't free, but for me it was worth the price.

Use 'VNG four color interpolation" (in newer builds) to get rid of the maze effects.

I find that UFRaw works great for single images; my problem right now is to find a good open source batch processor / workflow management tool for Linux and / or OS X. While Aperture is tempting, I am not planning on staying with OS X past the current computer, and will move back to Linux whenever I get a new one (probably not for another couple years at least), so I need whatever tools I standardize on to be cross platform compatible with both.

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.thecave.homeunix.org

My OS is Windows XP. Interesting that it seems assumed that I have Linux since I use GIMP. Instead of paying hundreds of dollars for software, I prefer to use shareware or (better yet) free, open source programs that meet my needs. I also use OpenOffice.

Shelli

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shellidawn/

Raw is not meant as an image transfer format, in the sense where it is used to view and distribute images. I would recommend shooting RAW + Jpeg and then you can use the JPEG and store the raw, maybe (actually, this is most probable) in 10 years you will have better ways to process the raw and will be able to produce better pictures out of it, and will be glad not to have thrown the extra info that it contains away.

I haen't used my e510 much recently, but when I did, I started to use RAW exclusively. You can always generate a jpg from Oly Viewer, but RAW gives you far more lattitude than jpg, especially highlight control.

ACDSee 7 Pro is on sale now for $79, an unbeatable deal. It is an excellent RAW developer with LOTS of features for developmend, editing and file management.

--
Bob B
www.pbase.com/bbernstein
Olympus e30, e-510, 12~60, 50~200 ED, EC14, 18~180, 14~42, 40~150, 50mm macro, 9~18, fl36