Can you post one of your raw files somewhere? It will make it easier to advise a solution. :)

-C

On 13 Dec 2017 00:34, "Deb Kennedy via gimp-developer-list" < gimp-developer-list@gnome.org> wrote:

I am new to programand I am puzzled by the conversion I had to do in order to open the files I hadbuploaded. I shot photos on the RAW setting on my camera. N70 Nikon. I wanted ti ability to make corrections so that is why I opted for that setting. 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? They appear as basically thumb print and when i tried changing the resolution in the GIMP 2.8 the photos still had very noticeable noise. Very pixelated. Annoyed i kept persistent to my task. To no avail. I need to upload said photos to a website Shutterfly for a book I am putting together for a dear friend. Is there anything I can do with GIMP 2.8 that would allow for better results? Shutterfly gives me an error code that the NEF files are not acceptable and I have tried diligently to fix my dilemma. Can you kindly advise me? Perhaps there is away to go around this and end up with actual good quality resolution so that the book can be made? Unfortunately re-shooting is not an option. I live a state away from where I was taking photos.
Any advice would be greatly helpful. Kindest Regards Dphotogirl

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp- developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On 12/13/17 00:59, Deb Kennedy via gimp-developer-list wrote:

I am new to programand I am puzzled by the conversion I had to do in order to open the files I hadbuploaded.   I shot photos on the RAW setting on my camera. N70 Nikon. I wanted ti ability to make corrections so that is why I opted for that setting. 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? They appear as basically thumb print and when i tried changing the resolution in the GIMP 2.8 the photos still had very noticeable noise. Very pixelated. Annoyed i kept persistent to my task. To no avail. I need to upload said photos to a website Shutterfly for a book I  am putting together for a dear friend. Is there anything I can do with GIMP 2.8 that would allow for better results? Shutterfly gives me an error code that the NEF files are not acceptable and I have tried diligently to fix my dilemma. Can you kindly advise me? Perhaps there is away to go around this and end up with actual good quality resolution so that the book can be made? Unfortunately re-shooting is not an option. I live a state away from where I was taking photos. 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.

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.

The pixls.us site is devoted to OpenSource photography software (and many authors of such software use it for support).

For  a list of raw-capable applications: https://pixls.us/software/

For discussion; https://discuss.pixls.us/

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.

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.

The pixls.us site is devoted to OpenSource photography software (and many authors of such software use it for support).

For  a list of raw-capable applications: https://pixls.us/software/

For discussion; https://discuss.pixls.us/

ĸen

Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather
boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth.
                                     - Unseen Academicals

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.

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 08:20:55PM +0100, Ofnuts wrote:

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 this is a gimp list - I have no problem with using different tools, but it takes a long time before a user can see how well they support what that user wishes to do.

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.

I tried lensfun when it was first an option in ufraw, at that time it had nothing for me. But my main comments are apropos my panasonic - I have the impression that perhaps the elements can move slightly, particularly if the camera is tilted, and in any case the *reported* focal lengths are discrete - perhaps it does zoom in a series of steps, but my experience is that different photos need different adjustments from the norm.

So, for me manual correction is the only way. If the automatic correction works for you and your cameras, be happy.

ĸen

Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather
boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth.
                                     - Unseen Academicals