Re: Best RAW photo editing tool?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote: > Hrm. Is that actually an appropriate use of floats? I think so. With modern hardware, even efficient time-wise. But chews up RAM a little faster. > I imagine > people working with JPEGs as source material basically can't care > about whatever precision is being lost; is the lost precision > `down in the noise' for RAW, too? yeah, JPEGs are hardly precise or accurate or anything else. One reason to access the RAW ... RAWs *are* precise, like a 12, 14, or 16 bit per channel GIF/PNG/TIFF; the only compression if any is RLE. If i save a RAW out again as TIFF16, I shouldn't have lost any original bits in the diversion into Floats with 'merely' 24 bits of fraction, but autoscaling avoids trouble in exposure compensations etc. (File-on-disk hash difference should be dominated by metadata changing when re-writing.) ( A little noise down in the noise may actual help avoid Mach banding during processing, so 'useless' extra precision of 24 bits may actually be helpful too.) -- Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Best RAW photo editing tool?
Bill Ricker writes: > > Fotoxx, which is my preferred tool for JPEG photo edits, now handles > RAW file natively, no longer by just shelling out to > ufraw&dcraw. Caveat, since Mike avoids integer math overflow pixel > problems by using FLOATs, so don't expect snappy performance on a > limited machine with large RAWs ! Hrm. Is that actually an appropriate use of floats? I imagine people working with JPEGs as source material basically can't care about whatever precision is being lost; is the lost precision `down in the noise' for RAW, too? -- "'tis an ill wind that blows no minds." ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Best RAW photo editing tool?
>How do I run that (auto-awesome) on my Linux box? I talk about google's "awesome" corrections a bit tongue in cheek, most of them are awful instagramy type effects. There is however an auto-enhance option(once uploaded from your linux box to google's linux box) that is subtle enough to be effective without touching a "curves" tool. I think digikam has a similar tool plus the option to break out the curve if you want to. Think my raw processing days are over until we start seeing that on our phones. Officially gave up on dslrs and won't touch the mirorless stuff till they have full frames, 4k displays and android/wifi. On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Ben Scott wrote: > >> I have got tired of post-processing because of the time it takes. Sad > to say > >> google's "auto-awesome" impresses me in terms of time efficiency. > > > How do I run that on my Linux box? > > > You don't, you just upload direct from Android or from laptop to the > gCloud and they'll awesome-ize it unless you say three times no i know > better don't. > > > -- > Bill Ricker > bill.n1...@gmail.com > https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
