RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

RAW format from digital camera.

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

8 of 8 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
RAW format from digital camera. John R. Culleton 23 Apr 02:03
  RAW format from digital camera. david 23 Apr 01:32
   RAW format from digital camera. Robin Laing 03 May 19:05
    RAW format from digital camera. Fabrizio Lippolis 04 May 15:02
  RAW format from digital camera. Renan Birck 23 Apr 02:16
   RAW format from digital camera. John R. Culleton 23 Apr 05:44
    RAW format from digital camera. david 23 Apr 05:08
    RAW format from digital camera. Stephan Hegel 23 Apr 05:38
david
2007-04-23 01:32:42 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 20:03 -0400, John R. Culleton wrote:

My digital camera will take pictures and store them in jpg mode but also in RAW mode. RAW mode takes up more room. I hve a couple of questions.

1. Will Gimp handle this RAW mode? If so what suffix should I use on the file?

2.2 won't
You have some options (assuming you are using Linux or Mac?):

* use dcraw * use rawstudio

2. Is there any advantage to using RAW mode instead of e.g., JPG at 5 megapixel resolution?

If you are only taking happy snaps, probably not. If you are serious or intending to do intense cropping or manipulation, then definitely. raw gives you what the camera sees with no loss. More messing around though.

John R. Culleton
2007-04-23 02:03:28 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

My digital camera will take pictures and store them in jpg mode but also in RAW mode. RAW mode takes up more room. I hve a couple of questions.

1. Will Gimp handle this RAW mode? If so what suffix should I use on the file?

2. Is there any advantage to using RAW mode instead of e.g., JPG at 5 megapixel resolution?

Renan Birck
2007-04-23 02:16:12 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

Em Dom, 2007-04-22 às 20:03 -0400, John R. Culleton escreveu:

1. Will Gimp handle this RAW mode? If so what suffix should I use on the file?

Not directly, but you can use tools like ufraw (which uses dcraw - considered one of the best tools for RAW format decoding).

2. Is there any advantage to using RAW mode instead of e.g., JPG at 5 megapixel resolution?

If you're doing professional photography, need the highest quality available or are going to do a lot of manipulation you should use RAW.

david
2007-04-23 05:08:12 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 23:44 -0400, John R. Culleton wrote:

On Sunday 22 April 2007 20:16, Renan Birck wrote:

Em Dom, 2007-04-22 às 20:03 -0400, John R. Culleton escreveu:

1. Will Gimp handle this RAW mode? If so what suffix should I use on the file?

Not directly, but you can use tools like ufraw (which uses dcraw - considered one of the best tools for RAW format decoding).

Ufraw seems to be a profiling tool I cannot find the sources for dcraw, only Mac and Wndoze binaries. I use Linux.

Hints?

You need to give us a hint which OS/distro you are using. For example in Ubuntu/Debian you would do something like:

# apt-get install ufraw (or dcraw, or rawstudio)

If you want source, try

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net or http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ or http://rawstudio.org/

which I got from Google.

ufraw will manipulate raw images and save them as .ppm which GIMP will then open.

dcraw pretty much does the same, but at the command line and is very powerful, but is NOT an image manipulation program like GIMP

Rawstudio saves in .tif or .jpg

They are all designed to do basic manipulation for white balance, exposure, contrast etc, but not full image manipulation.

Personally I use either dcraw or Rawstudio. I believe you can get import modules for the GIMP too, but I don't use those.

Stephan Hegel
2007-04-23 05:38:00 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

Hi John,

John R. Culleton wrote:

I cannot find the sources for dcraw, only Mac and Wndoze binaries. I use Linux.

Hints?

http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw

Search for dcraw.c - it is only this file.

Regards, Stephan.

John R. Culleton
2007-04-23 05:44:25 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

On Sunday 22 April 2007 20:16, Renan Birck wrote:

Em Dom, 2007-04-22 às 20:03 -0400, John R. Culleton escreveu:

1. Will Gimp handle this RAW mode? If so what suffix should I use on the file?

Not directly, but you can use tools like ufraw (which uses dcraw - considered one of the best tools for RAW format decoding).

Ufraw seems to be a profiling tool I cannot find the sources for dcraw, only Mac and Wndoze binaries. I use Linux.

Hints?

Robin Laing
2007-05-03 19:05:21 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

david wrote:

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 20:03 -0400, John R. Culleton wrote:

My digital camera will take pictures and store them in jpg mode but also in RAW mode. RAW mode takes up more room. I hve a couple of questions.

1. Will Gimp handle this RAW mode? If so what suffix should I use on the file?

2. Is there any advantage to using RAW mode instead of e.g., JPG at 5 megapixel resolution?

If you are only taking happy snaps, probably not. If you are serious or intending to do intense cropping or manipulation, then definitely. raw gives you what the camera sees with no loss. More messing around though.

I learned this lesson on a project that I was working on. About 700 pictures of an event all taken in RAW. Weeks of processing. Images are great but the time was costly to me.

Also, when taking RAW photo's, you need much more memory. This can be a major surprise when on a project. I was lucky to have purchased two new 2Gig cards just a week before the project.

Fabrizio Lippolis
2007-05-04 15:02:21 UTC (over 17 years ago)

RAW format from digital camera.

Robin Laing ha scritto:

I learned this lesson on a project that I was working on. About 700 pictures of an event all taken in RAW. Weeks of processing. Images are great but the time was costly to me.

If you use UFRaw you have the option to process pictures by the command line (batch mode). dcraw also works from command line. This way you can create a .bat or a .sh depending on your platform to process all the files stored in a directory automatically. 700 pictures are converted in a few hours. In weeks of processing you have all the time to create batch files from scratch and process your pictures and still save a lot of time. This works if at least most of the photos are taken "correctly", that means no further work on white balance and so on. On the other hand if you have to review every single photo to adjust some parameters it has no sense to process files in batch mode.

Also, when taking RAW photo's, you need much more memory.

True, but that's the price to pay for the best quality your photo equipment can afford.

Fabrizio