Gimp UFRAW VS ViewNX

[RichardsTPF]

I open the same raw image with Gimp UFRAW and ViewNX. UFRAW give me a darker image. I just start to learn pp and have no experience at all. Which one shall I trust?
If I need to adjust the vertical of a raw image, can I rotate it with UFRAW? I know Gimp provide a rotate tool for jepg file.

 

[fotoshooter]

You can trust both. Each one opens the file at different settings. You then make the adjustments that you like best..

 

[newb]

I use UFRaw every time I use Gimp. And I love em both.

In UFRaw when you have an image open go to the second to last tab (hover on it, and it will say crop and rotate), and you can rotate there.

If the opened image is too dark, just use the slider to adjust it. Or click the picture of the gears next to the slider for automatic adjustment. UFRaw resets to default values every time you open it, or retains the values from the last image if you dont close it between pictures. It needs adjusted with every photo.

 

[RichardsTPF]

You can trust both. Each one opens the file at different settings. You then make the adjustments that you like best..

Both are great software for free.
My question is: Same NEF RAW file, if the ViewNX shows overexposed image while UFRAW shows underexposed. Is is under or overexposed?
I can't paste the screen shot here due to its size.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

I use UFRAW with Gimp and my Canon 50D. I quite like it. I've never tried ViewNX... in fact this is the first time I've heard of it.

 

[RichardsTPF]

In UFRaw when you have an image open go to the second to last tab (hover on it, and it will say crop and rotate), and you can rotate there.

Find it. Done. Thank you. Is there any way to save the cropped image to NEF raw. Looks like it only allow me to save as non-raw, such as jepg.

 

[clanthar]

I open the same raw image with Gimp UFRAW and ViewNX. UFRAW give me a darker image. I just start to learn pp and have no experience at all. Which one shall I trust?

Neither -- they're both untrustworthy.

My question is: Same NEF RAW file, if the ViewNX shows overexposed image while UFRAW shows underexposed. Is is under or overexposed?

It's both underexposed and overexposed and correctly exposed all at the same time because the software can't be trusted.

Sorry for the ridiculous answer, but you've uncovered a ridiculous situation that is in fact ridiculous. RAW file converters interpret your raw data before showing you your image. There is no default or accepted standard that they all adhere to. Without a standard none of them are trustworthy. Some RAW converters have an option to present your photo without an applied tone curve, but even then they don't display the same image.

Bottom line: What you see when you first open a RAW file is an interpretation of your raw data by computer algorithms coded by the developers of the software and they all interpret your data differently. I've opened the exact same file in 5 different RAW converters and gotten 5 different results. Since all 5 were different they couldn't all be right so were they all wrong? Was one of them right? Which one? Do you have one of the right ones? Or maybe two of the wrong ones?

As a result I keep 4 RAW file converters active on my computer and I use all 4. I have the exact same problem. Two tell me my photo was overexpose while two others tell me it was underexposed. I think they're all wrong.

I'd like to say it doesn't matter and you can process out your photo satisfactorily no matter which converter you start with, but I've learned that's not the case -- therefore 4 RAW converters on my system -- not one of them is standalone adequate.

Joe

 

[RichardsTPF]

How about the JEPG converted by ViewNX or JEPG directly from the camera? Can I trust JEPG?
I am a noob learning manual exposure. I need to know if my exposure is right. Like you said if I get different results from different software, is it the converter or myself did wrong?

 

[clanthar]

The JPEG converted by ViewNX should be the same as the camera JPEG, both are software processed. You have a Nikon so the camera JPEG is the result of Nikon's EXPEED image processor. ViewNX, also from Nikon, should produce the same JPEG.

Neither are trustworthy relative to your question.

You're asking an intriguing and uncommon question. It rarely occurs to most photographers because most photographers haven't had the experience of using different RAW file converters and getting very different results. It's far more typical that a photographer will invest in something like Light Room from Adobe, start using it, and never question that LR is pre-processing their RAW files -- spin applied up front.

It's necessary that the software pre-process your RAW files. There's no other way to get an image up on your display. What you've discovered is that different software from different commercial and non-commercial suppliers do that pre-processing with variation. Leading you to then very rightly conclude that what they're doing may be interfering with your desire for feedback on what you did behind the camera.

This came up in a post last week. You should read through it: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/260217-question-interpreting-histogram-lr3.html

What you're experiencing is unsettling -- me too, but it's not disabling. The variation I see between RAW file processors irritates me and I wish the industry would adopt an appropriate standard. In the meantime those differences aren't huge and there is some real hard physical activity going on that the software engineers can't cover up. If you peg a photo receptor on your camera's sensor, nothing is going to recover data that's not there. If you wanted to test different RAW file processors the way to proceed would be to hand each of them a bracket set of files beginning with major overexposure and see when in the bracket set they manage to successfully start recovering highlight detail. This would be tied to a physical reality and I suspect the various programs would perform with reasonable consistency. I'm going to do that one of these day.

Joe