HOME | DD
AbbottPhotoArt — Dead tress
by-nc-sa
Published: 2010-07-12 15:45:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 1345; Favourites: 11; Downloads: 27
Redirect to original
Description
Also taken in the Barragup Swamp.Related content
Comments: 16
oh my god I love the contrast you pumped into this shot! do you do any traditional photography? you would have a blast with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Interesting b/w conversion. It reminds me of the GEGL c2g filter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I haven't actually used any GEGL filters, this was a botched HDR converted to greyscale. I only recently appreciated the potential of greyscale images, after reading an article on using the channel mixer to manipulate the look of a mono conversion. I find ufraw very good for this, although I normally use rawtherapee on raw files.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think people would use GEGL a lot more if they moved it from tools to filters. I personally haven't had much luck with raw converters other than UFRaw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm in the same boat. When I first bought my camera Rawtherapee was the only open source program that I could find that supported my camera, since then UFraw has added support, I like the GUI of UFraw but rawtherapee I find has more options (generally speaking).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I use CHDK with a Canon that does not support raw files from the factory, so not all programs support these files. It's understandable, but what I don't get is why even after I convert them to DNG they still won't be read. RawTherapee does work with my files but white balance and noise is a major problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Does CHDK give you the standard canon raw format or is it different? I remember seeing on the ubuntu forums a few people have trouble with canon's raw format, I was surprised because canon are a major player in camera's. It is strange that the DNGs aren't read.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CHDK(Canon Hack Development Kit) uses dcraw as a basis I think. It is not the same as "true" raw. I believe you only get 10 bits per channel as opposed to the 16 in standard raw files. I'm not using Adobe's DNG converter, so I think that's the problem there. It's a poor mans way of doing things, but it will get the job done till I can afford something better. I did try rawtherapee earlier today and it actually worked very well. The one that does not is Bibble Pro. Oh well, it's only a trail anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GIMP is only 8 bit anyway, so it shouldn't make much difference. I've never tried bibble is it any good?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't sound like it, but when you consider that an 8 bit picture can have 16.7 million different colour combinations and a 16 bit can have 281 trillion total possible colours, it makes that difference seem a lot bigger. It really only makes a big difference when you need to do major colour edits, so I guess your right. I think it's good, but maybe not worth the price tag.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
