Re: [Gimp-developer] Using Gimp 2.8

[Ofnuts <ofnuts gmx com>]

On 12/13/17 18:38, Ken Moffat via gimp-developer-list wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Ofnuts wrote:
> > On 12/13/17 00:59, Deb Kennedy via gimp-developer-list wrote:
> > > I noticed they uploaded as NEF files but they were not readily available for viewing so  I then converted to 
> > > JPEG using GIMP 2.8.  Now my inquiry is this. Why are the files all grainy /noisy?
> > > Any advice would be greatly helpful. Kindest Regards Dphotogirl
> > By default Gimp doesn't read "raw" files, you need a raw processing pluging
> > (Nufraw, photozone..). It is possible that what you see is the embedded JPEG
> > thumbnail and not the full image.
> Thumbnails is my assumption too.  Unless space on the card is a
> problem, it's usually easiest to save both raw AND jpeg on each shot,
> jpegs for quick reminders of the picture, NEF for usable files
> .
> > If you want to do correction from raw files, you have better use specialized
> > applications such as RawTherapee or Darktable, especially if you are still
> > using Gimp 2.8.
> I disagree here - for 8-bit colours (gimp-2.8, adequate for many
> purposes) ufraw or its successor nufraw work well.  There is plenty
> of documentation for ufraw online, nufraw is a fork with some
> additions after the original ufraw developer lacked the time to
> continue supporting it.
>
> I have nothing against DarkTable, RawTherapee, or Photozone - but
> they are all different and set up to do things their own way.  For
> somebody who mainly uses the gimp, ufraw or nufraw seem to have a
> much less steep learning-curve.

Yes, but they have much more complete processing.
> But some of that is the difference between people taking good photos
> on good equipment, and a hacker taking snatched photos on "adequate"
> equipment.  For example, in many of my W/A shots I have to correct
> visible barrel distortion (subjects with a straight line in the
> outer part of the view) and with zoom lenses I find that using the
> gimp's lens distortion filter I can correct this with a negative
> value in the first (main) field, but that value may differ between
> shots taken at different times with the same recorded EXIF focal
> length.  It's all horses for courses.

These days one uses the lensfun library that has correction data for 
most cameras and lenses (and you can create your own calibration data if 
needed). This  is faster and more accurate than eyeballing a correction. 
Gimp may have a lensfun plugin now,  but these apps all know how to use 
it natively.