Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Seeking photo "developing" software
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Ciszek
May 28, 2012, 12:44:31 PM5/28/12
to
I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
me to do the following:
* Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
* Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
8 bits per channel
* Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
* Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
adjustment on said greyscale image.
SILKYPIX can import my RW2 and export them as 16-bit-per-channel TIFFs,
but it cannot do color separation and its contrast adjustment appears
to be limited to "reasonable" values. (If someone could show me how to
take the "reasonable" restrictions off and do severe contrast adjustment
in SILKYPIX, I would be grateful.) GIMP does color separation and is
willing to do any contrast changes you ask for, but it can only handle
8 bits per channel, so blowing up the contrast is really just a form of
posterizing.
Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
and is priced accordingly.
The point of all this: I got a fairly sharp picture of the sun
with sunspots on May 20th:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7255502798/
Now, the sun is basically a big disk of brightness in this picture.
I think there is more interesting detail that could be extracted if
I could exaggerate the contrast around a point fairly high on the
brightness scale, i.e., "If any pixel is brighter or dimmer than
85% of full scale, I want to make it a LOT brighter or dimmer than
85% of full scale." SILKYPIX won't let me do this. Even if there
isn't any more detail to be extracted from this picture, I want to
have the ability to mutilate my pictures as I damn well please, on
general principles.
So, anybody know any good photo processing programs? Running under
Linux is a plus, but I am realistic as to the odds of *that* happening.
--
Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson
me to do the following:
* Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
* Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
8 bits per channel
* Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
* Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
adjustment on said greyscale image.
SILKYPIX can import my RW2 and export them as 16-bit-per-channel TIFFs,
but it cannot do color separation and its contrast adjustment appears
to be limited to "reasonable" values. (If someone could show me how to
take the "reasonable" restrictions off and do severe contrast adjustment
in SILKYPIX, I would be grateful.) GIMP does color separation and is
willing to do any contrast changes you ask for, but it can only handle
8 bits per channel, so blowing up the contrast is really just a form of
posterizing.
Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
and is priced accordingly.
The point of all this: I got a fairly sharp picture of the sun
with sunspots on May 20th:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7255502798/
Now, the sun is basically a big disk of brightness in this picture.
I think there is more interesting detail that could be extracted if
I could exaggerate the contrast around a point fairly high on the
brightness scale, i.e., "If any pixel is brighter or dimmer than
85% of full scale, I want to make it a LOT brighter or dimmer than
85% of full scale." SILKYPIX won't let me do this. Even if there
isn't any more detail to be extracted from this picture, I want to
have the ability to mutilate my pictures as I damn well please, on
general principles.
So, anybody know any good photo processing programs? Running under
Linux is a plus, but I am realistic as to the odds of *that* happening.
--
Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson
nospam
May 28, 2012, 1:00:26 PM5/28/12
to
In article <jq0a1f$5lo$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
space is pro photo rgb and photoshop is user selectable.
> SILKYPIX can import my RW2 and export them as 16-bit-per-channel TIFFs,
> but it cannot do color separation and its contrast adjustment appears
> to be limited to "reasonable" values. (If someone could show me how to
> take the "reasonable" restrictions off and do severe contrast adjustment
> in SILKYPIX, I would be grateful.) GIMP does color separation and is
> willing to do any contrast changes you ask for, but it can only handle
> 8 bits per channel, so blowing up the contrast is really just a form of
> posterizing.
>
> Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
> and is priced accordingly.
lightroom is cheap and photoshop elements is even cheaper and often
bundled for free with hardware. why do people insist on comparing the
price of the full photoshop when all they need is elements?
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
> me to do the following:
>
> * Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
> bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
>
> * Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
> 8 bits per channel
>
> * Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
>
> * Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
> adjustment on said greyscale image.
photoshop or lightroom can easily do that. lightroom's standard colour
> I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
> me to do the following:
>
> * Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
> bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
>
> * Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
> 8 bits per channel
>
> * Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
>
> * Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
> adjustment on said greyscale image.
space is pro photo rgb and photoshop is user selectable.
> SILKYPIX can import my RW2 and export them as 16-bit-per-channel TIFFs,
> but it cannot do color separation and its contrast adjustment appears
> to be limited to "reasonable" values. (If someone could show me how to
> take the "reasonable" restrictions off and do severe contrast adjustment
> in SILKYPIX, I would be grateful.) GIMP does color separation and is
> willing to do any contrast changes you ask for, but it can only handle
> 8 bits per channel, so blowing up the contrast is really just a form of
> posterizing.
>
> Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
> and is priced accordingly.
bundled for free with hardware. why do people insist on comparing the
price of the full photoshop when all they need is elements?
Paul Ciszek
May 28, 2012, 1:30:14 PM5/28/12
to
In article <280520121000269081%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <jq0a1f$5lo$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
><nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
>> me to do the following:
>>
>> * Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
>> bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
>>
>> * Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
>> 8 bits per channel
>>
>> * Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
>>
>> * Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
>> adjustment on said greyscale image.
>
>photoshop or lightroom can easily do that. lightroom's standard colour
>space is pro photo rgb and photoshop is user selectable.
Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides Panasonic
>In article <jq0a1f$5lo$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
><nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
>> me to do the following:
>>
>> * Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
>> bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
>>
>> * Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
>> 8 bits per channel
>>
>> * Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
>>
>> * Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
>> adjustment on said greyscale image.
>
>photoshop or lightroom can easily do that. lightroom's standard colour
>space is pro photo rgb and photoshop is user selectable.
even know about RW2?
>> Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
>> and is priced accordingly.
>
>lightroom is cheap and photoshop elements is even cheaper and often
>bundled for free with hardware. why do people insist on comparing the
>price of the full photoshop when all they need is elements?
--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
Joe Makowiec
May 28, 2012, 1:49:29 PM5/28/12
to
On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> Panasonic even know about RW2?
Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> Panasonic even know about RW2?
conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
http://www.gimp.org/
* they list a whole bunch of Panasonics on their site...
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Joe Makowiec
May 28, 2012, 1:53:28 PM5/28/12
to
On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> Panasonic even know about RW2?
For that matter, the back end on UFRaw is DCRaw; if you go to the DCRaw
> Panasonic even know about RW2?
site, he has about a whole bunch of links to assorted photo decoders:
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
nospam
May 28, 2012, 1:58:31 PM5/28/12
to
In article <XnsA0618CA0EF3B4ma...@88.198.244.100>, Joe
> Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
who cares. how does open source help in doing what he needs? do you
expect him to write his own filters???
Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> > Panasonic even know about RW2?
>
> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> conversion)?
he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
> > Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> > Panasonic even know about RW2?
>
> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> conversion)?
> Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
expect him to write his own filters???
nospam
May 28, 2012, 1:58:34 PM5/28/12
to
In article <jq0cn5$p18$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
cameras is here:
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html>
> >> Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
> >> and is priced accordingly.
> >
> >lightroom is cheap and photoshop elements is even cheaper and often
> >bundled for free with hardware. why do people insist on comparing the
> >price of the full photoshop when all they need is elements?
>
> Do you think Elements will do all of the items on my list?
absolutely. the difference between elements and the full photoshop is
elements doesn't have features that non-pro users will ever use and
nothing you listed is among them.
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
> >> me to do the following:
> >>
> >> * Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
> >> bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
> >>
> >> * Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
> >> 8 bits per channel
> >>
> >> * Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
> >>
> >> * Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
> >> adjustment on said greyscale image.
> >
> >photoshop or lightroom can easily do that. lightroom's standard colour
> >space is pro photo rgb and photoshop is user selectable.
>
> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides Panasonic
> even know about RW2?
from what i read it does. both use camera raw and the list of supported
> >> I am seeking a program for "developing" raw photo files that will allow
> >> me to do the following:
> >>
> >> * Import RW2 files from my Panasonic camera, or else work with the 16-
> >> bit-per-channel TIFFs that SILKYPIX can export.
> >>
> >> * Actually do the work in a color space with more dynamic range than
> >> 8 bits per channel
> >>
> >> * Separate out a single color channel to form a greyscale image
> >>
> >> * Allow me to do a totally arbitrary, gonzo, balls-to-the-wall contrast
> >> adjustment on said greyscale image.
> >
> >photoshop or lightroom can easily do that. lightroom's standard colour
> >space is pro photo rgb and photoshop is user selectable.
>
> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides Panasonic
> even know about RW2?
cameras is here:
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html>
> >> Photoshop probably does what I want, but it does so much more as well
> >> and is priced accordingly.
> >
> >lightroom is cheap and photoshop elements is even cheaper and often
> >bundled for free with hardware. why do people insist on comparing the
> >price of the full photoshop when all they need is elements?
>
> Do you think Elements will do all of the items on my list?
elements doesn't have features that non-pro users will ever use and
nothing you listed is among them.
Paul Ciszek
May 28, 2012, 2:19:58 PM5/28/12
to
>On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>
>Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
I downloaded the add-ons that were supposed to allow GIMP to import
>
>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>
>Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
my RAW photo files, and it *still* didn't know what to do with them.
I also tried importing 16-bit-per-channel TIFFs, and it told me GIMP
had an 8-bit-per-channel internal colorspace. But then, I was doing
all of this while booted in Linux. Does Windows GIMP do better?
>* they list a whole bunch of Panasonics on their site...
only to be told that I still need to install it.
--
Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
Paul Ciszek
May 28, 2012, 2:21:50 PM5/28/12
to
In article <280520121058318178%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <XnsA0618CA0EF3B4ma...@88.198.244.100>, Joe
>Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>> > Panasonic even know about RW2?
>>
>> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>> conversion)?
>
>he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
It is possible that I am mis-using GIMP.
>In article <XnsA0618CA0EF3B4ma...@88.198.244.100>, Joe
>Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>> > Panasonic even know about RW2?
>>
>> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>> conversion)?
>
>he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
>> Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
>
>who cares. how does open source help in doing what he needs? do you
>expect him to write his own filters???
to run SILYPIX), the existance of open source is at least encouraging--
it means that someone just might be geeky enough to make a Linux version.
Paul Ciszek
May 28, 2012, 2:23:12 PM5/28/12
to
In article <280520121058348344%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Do you think Elements will do all of the items on my list?
>
>absolutely. the difference between elements and the full photoshop is
>elements doesn't have features that non-pro users will ever use and
>nothing you listed is among them.
Again, thank you.
>>
>> Do you think Elements will do all of the items on my list?
>
>absolutely. the difference between elements and the full photoshop is
>elements doesn't have features that non-pro users will ever use and
>nothing you listed is among them.
--
Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
nospam
May 28, 2012, 2:37:34 PM5/28/12
to
In article <jq0fnu$5o4$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
*still* doesn't have adjustment layers, it's stuck at 8 bit and its raw
processing (via ufraw) is slow and not as good as camera raw.
> >> Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
> >
> >who cares. how does open source help in doing what he needs? do you
> >expect him to write his own filters???
>
> Since I do as much in Linux as possible (currently, I only boot Windows
> to run SILYPIX), the existance of open source is at least encouraging--
> it means that someone just might be geeky enough to make a Linux version.
why wait, when solutions exist?
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> >> > Panasonic even know about RW2?
> >>
> >> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> >> conversion)?
> >
> >he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
>
> It is possible that I am mis-using GIMP.
could be, but the gimp is roughly where photoshop was ten years ago. it
> >> > Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
> >> > Panasonic even know about RW2?
> >>
> >> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> >> conversion)?
> >
> >he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
>
> It is possible that I am mis-using GIMP.
*still* doesn't have adjustment layers, it's stuck at 8 bit and its raw
processing (via ufraw) is slow and not as good as camera raw.
> >> Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
> >
> >who cares. how does open source help in doing what he needs? do you
> >expect him to write his own filters???
>
> Since I do as much in Linux as possible (currently, I only boot Windows
> to run SILYPIX), the existance of open source is at least encouraging--
> it means that someone just might be geeky enough to make a Linux version.
Martin Brown
May 28, 2012, 2:46:38 PM5/28/12
to
provided you are prepared to work on each colour image seperately. They
generally work in monochrome 12 or 16 bits per pixel and will allow
arbitrary histogram and contrast curve enhancements. You will need to go
through some common format between the two packages .BMP or .PNG.
Some must be free but off hand I don't know which ones are decent.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
ray
May 28, 2012, 4:27:19 PM5/28/12
to
C. Neil Ellwood
May 29, 2012, 3:35:25 AM5/29/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:49:29 +0000, Joe Makowiec wrote:
> On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>
> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
>
> http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
>
> http://www.gimp.org/
>
> * they list a whole bunch of Panasonics on their site...
There is also RawStudio and RawTherapee both very good prog. I don't know
> On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>
> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
> conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
>
> http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
>
> http://www.gimp.org/
>
> * they list a whole bunch of Panasonics on their site...
how many dists. have them in their repositories but Fedora does.
--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
bugbear
May 29, 2012, 4:10:32 AM5/29/12
to
nospam wrote:
> In article<jq0fnu$5o4$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>>>>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>>>> conversion)?
>>>
>>> he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
>>
>> It is possible that I am mis-using GIMP.
>
> could be, but the gimp is roughly where photoshop was ten years ago. it
> *still* doesn't have adjustment layers, it's stuck at 8 bit
8 bit. This is becoming a major stumbling block for Gimp.
> In article<jq0fnu$5o4$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>>>>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>>>> conversion)?
>>>
>>> he said he tried the gimp and it didn't do what he needed.
>>
>> It is possible that I am mis-using GIMP.
>
> could be, but the gimp is roughly where photoshop was ten years ago. it
> *still* doesn't have adjustment layers, it's stuck at 8 bit
BugBear
bugbear
May 29, 2012, 4:12:49 AM5/29/12
to
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> if I could exaggerate the contrast around a point fairly high on the
> brightness scale, i.e., "If any pixel is brighter or dimmer than
> 85% of full scale, I want to make it a LOT brighter or dimmer than
> 85% of full scale." SILKYPIX won't let me do this. Even if there
> isn't any more detail to be extracted from this picture, I want to
> have the ability to mutilate my pictures as I damn well please, on
> general principles.
A desire Localised response curves means that you're heading in the area of
> if I could exaggerate the contrast around a point fairly high on the
> brightness scale, i.e., "If any pixel is brighter or dimmer than
> 85% of full scale, I want to make it a LOT brighter or dimmer than
> 85% of full scale." SILKYPIX won't let me do this. Even if there
> isn't any more detail to be extracted from this picture, I want to
> have the ability to mutilate my pictures as I damn well please, on
> general principles.
tonemapping.
My first approach would be to pseudo-expose your
16 bit data, emphasising various ranges of value
(i.e. emphassis the contrast in separate tones)
then use something like enfuse with high contrast
weighting to merge the results.
BugBear
Paul Ciszek
May 30, 2012, 5:06:48 AM5/30/12
to
In article <LJednYAF4Jig4VnS...@bt.com>,
found it, but when I tried to install it got a 404. So I updated my
repositories, and now I can't find it at all.
C. Neil Ellwood
May 31, 2012, 6:55:25 AM5/31/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:06:48 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <LJednYAF4Jig4VnS...@bt.com>,
> C. Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:49:29 +0000, Joe Makowiec wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>>>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>>>
>>> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>>> conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
>>>
>>> http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>> http://www.gimp.org/
>>>
>>> * they list a whole bunch of Panasonics on their site...
>>
>>There is also RawStudio and RawTherapee both very good prog. I don't
>>know how many dists. have them in their repositories but Fedora does.
>
> Hmmm. I am using Ubuntu; I searched for RawStudio in the package
> manager,
> found it, but when I tried to install it got a 404. So I updated my
> repositories, and now I can't find it at all.
google for it and install from thier site.
> In article <LJednYAF4Jig4VnS...@bt.com>,
> C. Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:49:29 +0000, Joe Makowiec wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 May 2012 in rec.photo.digital, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you. Does either support RW2? Hell, does anyone besides
>>>> Panasonic even know about RW2?
>>>
>>> Have you looked at UFRaw* and/or TheGIMP (which uses UFRaw for raw
>>> conversion)? Both are open source/GPL/free (as in beer).
>>>
>>> http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>> http://www.gimp.org/
>>>
>>> * they list a whole bunch of Panasonics on their site...
>>
>>There is also RawStudio and RawTherapee both very good prog. I don't
>>know how many dists. have them in their repositories but Fedora does.
>
> Hmmm. I am using Ubuntu; I searched for RawStudio in the package
> manager,
> found it, but when I tried to install it got a 404. So I updated my
> repositories, and now I can't find it at all.
Paul Ciszek
Jun 1, 2012, 10:46:55 PM6/1/12
to
In article <DMKdnfMEW8qA01rS...@bt.com>,
and when I tried to install it, got this error message:
rawstudio:
Depends: libflickcurl0 but it is not installable
0 new messages