Another Gimp/UFRaw topic

[Bill Y.]

For starters, is there any good reason why UFRaw should be used for anything
other than opening a RAW file before transporting it to Gimp?

What I really wanted to ask was, Why, when open up an image in UFRaw and it
looks great, even when zoomed in as much as allowed. However, when you sent it
to Gimp via UFRaw, when you zoom into even a small amount the image is very
pixelated. When or how did it become downsized or some sort of processing that
might cause this to happen? Is it possible to bring in a RAW file and retain
it's sharpness?

Thanks for anyone's help in regards to this.


--
Bryan (via www.gimpusers.com)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[John Mills-4]

Bryan -

Wiser heads will probably correct or refine this, but ...

The 'raw' file is supposed to represent data very close to what is
provided by the camera's sensor array.

Before saving images in non-raw formats (JPEG, etc.) the camera performs
some conversions of the image field as well as - usually - applying some
compression. These conversions are irreversible and represent a compromise
intended to give pleasing images of common subjects.

This is crudely analogous to the processing applied to color negatives by
most photo processors as they are printed - you have probably seen the
quite surprising results this sometimes gives: colors gone crazy!

UFRaw gives you the chance to make different assumptions and adjustments,
and keeps the original image file untouched in case you want another
chance. It also provides as default a compensation similar to what the
camera would have done if left to its own algorithms. That's what you get
if you don't intervene.

If you aren't making any adjustments in UFRaw you may be just as well-off
to work with [say] JPEG images out of your camera. The intermediate stage
of adjusting your image in UFRaw is one of the main reasons for using RAW
format in the first place.

At least that's my [mis?]understanding.

  - Mills

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Bryan wrote:

> For starters, is there any good reason why UFRaw should be used for
> anything other than opening a RAW file before transporting it to Gimp?

> What I really wanted to ask was, Why, when open up an image in UFRaw and
> it looks great, even when zoomed in as much as allowed. However, when
> you sent it to Gimp via UFRaw, when you zoom into even a small amount
> the image is very pixelated. When or how did it become downsized or some
> sort of processing that might cause this to happen? Is it possible to
> bring in a RAW file and retain it's sharpness?

> Thanks for anyone's help in regards to this.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-09-30, John Mills <johnmills@...> wrote:
> If you aren't making any adjustments in UFRaw you may be just as well-off
> to work with [say] JPEG images out of your camera. The intermediate stage
> of adjusting your image in UFRaw is one of the main reasons for using RAW
> format in the first place.

This is as far from being true as one can get.

A hint: a camera uses as-much-pessimized-as-possible computer, and
does RAW-->JPEG conversion in a fraction of a second.  RAW converter
most probably uses hundreds times more powerful hardware, and takes up
to minute(s) to perform convertion.

Guess how the results compare...

Hope this helps,
Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Bill Y.]

>On 2009-09-30, John Mills <johnmills@...> wrote:
>> If you aren't making any adjustments in UFRaw you may be just as well-off

>> to work with [say] JPEG images out of your camera. The intermediate stage

>> of adjusting your image in UFRaw is one of the main reasons for using RAW

>> format in the first place.
>
>This is as far from being true as one can get.
>
>A hint: a camera uses as-much-pessimized-as-possible computer, and
>does RAW-->JPEG conversion in a fraction of a second.  RAW converter
>most probably uses hundreds times more powerful hardware, and takes up
>to minute(s) to perform convertion.
>
>Guess how the results compare...
>
>Hope this helps,
>Ilya
>
>I'll embellish the OP's original question for further discussion.

Obviously, if you adjust in UFRaw, your 'range' of adjustments is much wider
than what would be available if you were starting straight to GIMP with a
camera generated JPG.

In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in UFRAW, is
there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in Gimp or
other editing application) than what you might get straight from the camera?

Personally, I use UFRaw to fine tune the exposure (I like those blinking
whatchamacallits) although, most of the time, having shot in RAW and adjusted
exposure in the camera according to the histogram view, I generally already
have the best exposure balance so that, if there is any blinking in UFRaw, it
will show up for both overblown highlights and underexposed shadows.  I might
do a little noise control on some shots, and that's about it.  The rest, in my
view, is better handled in GIMP.

It feels as though I have a lot of latitude in GIMP.  It's not unusual for me
to rescue details in deep shadows by adding duplicate layers in screen mode
(masking out all but the shadowed areas).

I finally have that process down, and it works quite well.

Since I don't shoot in JPEG at all, I cannot say if the process would be
greatly compromised using in camera jpegs, but someone else may be able to
share some thoughts along those lines.

Caruso

--
Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi <forums@...> wrote:
> In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in UFRAW, is
> there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in Gimp or
> other editing application) than what you might get straight from the camera?

This is not a very have-a-clear-answer topic.

I would guess that with Canon, the answer is straightforward: the
RAW-converted output would be SIGNIFICANTLY better than in-camera one
in ALL respects.  Dynamic range, handling of clipping, handling of
noise, sharpness, etc.

With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear.  I did not
see any report of RAW processor which can match Apical-style "Dynamic
Range Optimizations".

So: there might be one respect (tonal mapping, sometimes called
"dynamic range") in which RAW-processed-JPEG might be not as good as
in-camera one...

> It feels as though I have a lot of latitude in GIMP.

8-bit is good enough for "minimally postprocessed" images, since noise
would provide sufficient dithering, both in highlights and in darks.
However, significant noise reduction and/or substantial tonal mapping
has a risk to make banding visible.  Which makes GIMP not very
suitable for such styles of photography.  (Not so with the subjects I
favor most, so I did not see that.)

Hope this helps,
Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Bill Y.]

>On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi <forums@...> wrote:
>> In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in UFRAW,
is
>> there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in Gimp
or
>> other editing application) than what you might get straight from the
camera?

>
>This is not a very have-a-clear-answer topic.
>
>I would guess that with Canon, the answer is straightforward: the
>RAW-converted output would be SIGNIFICANTLY better than in-camera one
>in ALL respects.  Dynamic range, handling of clipping, handling of
>noise, sharpness, etc.
>
>With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
>hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
>in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear.  I did not
>see any report of RAW processor which can match Apical-style "Dynamic
>Range Optimizations".
>
>So: there might be one respect (tonal mapping, sometimes called
>"dynamic range") in which RAW-processed-JPEG might be not as good as
>in-camera one...
>
>> It feels as though I have a lot of latitude in GIMP.
>
>8-bit is good enough for "minimally postprocessed" images, since noise
>would provide sufficient dithering, both in highlights and in darks.
>However, significant noise reduction and/or substantial tonal mapping
>has a risk to make banding visible.  Which makes GIMP not very
>suitable for such styles of photography.  (Not so with the subjects I
>favor most, so I did not see that.)
>
>Hope this helps,
>Ilya
>
>

Ok,  I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before I
decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge. I'm
shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because without
opening the file first with UFRaw, I can't get it into into Gimp for Post
Processing. I hope I'm right so far. Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw
and whether I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it
to Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw converted it
to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks crappy in GIMP,
particulairly when zoomed in on? Isn't there is only a relatively small amount
of things you can do to an image in UFRaw? Which is why you'd want to get that
RAW file to GIMP to be able to really do some post processing because there is
only so much you can do to a jpg?


--
Bryan (via www.gimpusers.com)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[John Mills-4]

Ilya -

Thanks for your earlier note -- I am quite happy to stand corrected and
your post suggests a basic experiment I can easily do: compare in-camera
processed and post-processed RAW images for the same scene and settings.

I'll have a limited sample to work with: my only camera delivering RAW
images is a Pentax K100D, quite dated now by newer technology. On the
other hand, I can compare UFRaw into GIMP and Photoshop Elements with the
Pentax plug-in into PSE and (if I have a suitable intermediate format)
into GIMP. At the very least I'll learn something.

If I see anything surprising or interesting I may share it and hopefully
get useful feedback. Anyway, there's no substitute for knowing what one's
own equipment does.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

> On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi <forums@...> wrote:

>> In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in
>> UFRAW, is there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG
>> file (in Gimp or other editing application) than what you might get
>> straight from the camera?

> This is not a very have-a-clear-answer topic.

> I would guess that with Canon, the answer is straightforward: the
> RAW-converted output would be SIGNIFICANTLY better than in-camera one
> in ALL respects.  Dynamic range, handling of clipping, handling of
> noise, sharpness, etc.

> With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
> hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
> in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear.  I did not
> see any report of RAW processor which can match Apical-style "Dynamic
> Range Optimizations".

> So: there might be one respect (tonal mapping, sometimes called
> "dynamic range") in which RAW-processed-JPEG might be not as good as
> in-camera one...

I'm not sure I follow that, unless the sensor's bit-depth and that of the
camera's RAW format are different.

I'm not at the stage of getting full scale from my images: still working
for consistent, decent quality prints from straight-forward subjects.

  - Mills

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[George Farris]

On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 07:11 -0700,
> Ok,  I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before I
> decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge. I'm
> shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because without
> opening the file first with UFRaw, I can't get it into into Gimp for Post
> Processing. I hope I'm right so far. Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw
> and whether I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it
> to Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw converted it
> to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks crappy in GIMP,
> particulairly when zoomed in on?

Well you would need to "Sharpen" the RAW image, JPG's are normally
sharpened in camera but not so with RAW.  In fact even most JPG images
could benefit from some sharpening.

Cheers
George




_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Bill Y.]

Well thank you Simon, even though you didn't have the answer at least I don't
feel alone on this issue. I'll see if I can find anything more in a UFRaw
site. Much obliged.
-Bryan

>There was nothing wrong with your question: It was perfectly clear.
>
>What was strange is that everyone on the list who replied, did not
>answer your question but answered the question that thought that they
>had read.  Perhaps, they simply do not want to answer it, or the
>explanation missed its mark and had to be reformatted to that of the
>layman :)  Myself included.
>
>I had a quick look on the UFraw website.   It briefly explains how it
>saves the file from the programme to the disc, but does not explain in
>which format it passes the file to Gimp.  Sorry, but I don't know the
>answer.
>
>You could try asking on a UFraw mailing list if there is one, or the
>UFraw forum:
>http://sourceforge.net/projects/ufraw/forums/forum/434060
>
>Simon.
>
>Bryan wrote:
>>> On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi <forums@...> wrote:
>>>> In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in

UFRAW,
>> is
>>>> there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in
Gimp

>> or
>>>> other editing application) than what you might get straight from the
>> camera?
>>> This is not a very have-a-clear-answer topic.
>>>
>>> I would guess that with Canon, the answer is straightforward: the
>>> RAW-converted output would be SIGNIFICANTLY better than in-camera one
>>> in ALL respects.  Dynamic range, handling of clipping, handling of
>>> noise, sharpness, etc.
>>>
>>> With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
>>> hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
>>> in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear.  I did not
>>> see any report of RAW processor which can match Apical-style "Dynamic
>>> Range Optimizations".
>>>
>>> So: there might be one respect (tonal mapping, sometimes called
>>> "dynamic range") in which RAW-processed-JPEG might be not as good as
>>> in-camera one...
>>>
>>>> It feels as though I have a lot of latitude in GIMP.
>>> 8-bit is good enough for "minimally postprocessed" images, since noise
>>> would provide sufficient dithering, both in highlights and in darks.
>>> However, significant noise reduction and/or substantial tonal mapping
>>> has a risk to make banding visible.  Which makes GIMP not very
>>> suitable for such styles of photography.  (Not so with the subjects I
>>> favor most, so I did not see that.)
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>> Ilya
>>>
>>>
>> Ok,  I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before

I
>> decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge.
I'm
>> shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because
without
>> opening the file first with UFRaw, I can't get it into into Gimp for Post
>> Processing. I hope I'm right so far. Well, after opening the RAW file in
UFRaw
>> and whether I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send
it
>> to Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw converted
it
>> to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks crappy in GIMP,
>> particulairly when zoomed in on? Isn't there is only a relatively small
amount
>> of things you can do to an image in UFRaw? Which is why you'd want to get
that
>> RAW file to GIMP to be able to really do some post processing because
there is
>> only so much you can do to a jpg?
>>
>>
>
>

--
Bryan (via www.gimpusers.com)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-10-01, John Mills <johnmills@...> wrote:
>> With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
>> hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
>> in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear.  I did not
>> see any report of RAW processor which can match Apical-style "Dynamic
>> Range Optimizations".
>
>> So: there might be one respect (tonal mapping, sometimes called
>> "dynamic range") in which RAW-processed-JPEG might be not as good as
>> in-camera one...

> I'm not sure I follow that, unless the sensor's bit-depth and that of the
> camera's RAW format are different.

Sensor bit-depth is an absolutely bogus metric (unless one uses it as
"an indicator of amount of R&D", which may correlate with other,
important issues; such as read noise and correlation of noise of
nearby pixels).

If RAW files were compressed to 8-bit gamma=2, they won't loose
"practically any" information; 9-bit would be a significant overkill
(assuming full-well about 70K electrons, as typical large-sensor dSLRs
have).  gamma=2.2 is very similar.  (The special significance of
quantization after gamma=2 is that Poisson noise becomes
"constant-width", thus dithers in dark parts as well as in
highlights.)

If you do not know what DRO is, look on dpreview, and/or look for
examples on Apical site.

Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-10-01, Bryan <forums@...> wrote:

> Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw and whether
> I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it to
> Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw
> converted it to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks
> crappy in GIMP, particulairly when zoomed in on?

I have no idea how your communication channel is configured.  I would
use sRGB 8-bit TIFF (do not know whether deflation makes sense [called
ZIP in GIMP]) with no downscale, or at most to-75% downscale (to-65%
should be OK with most pocket cameras).

> Isn't there is only a relatively small amount of things you can do
> to an image in UFRaw?

Probably true (never used UFRaw ;-).  On the other hand, AFAIK, GIMP
has practically no tools to do photo-related work either (one can't
even apply a curve to L channel without going through a hundred
hoops).

Hope this helps,
Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Bill Y.]

>There was nothing wrong with your question: It was perfectly clear.
>
>What was strange is that everyone on the list who replied, did not
>answer your question but answered the question that thought that they
>had read.  Perhaps, they simply do not want to answer it, or the
>explanation missed its mark and had to be reformatted to that of the
>layman :)  Myself included.


Actually, we're all making what I think are sincere efforts to contribute
comments that might help answer the OP's question.  I never gave any thought
to what format UFRaw sends to Gimp, but I bet it's not some Gimp native
format, as I doubt Gimp has one.  Gimp saves xcf files which, if my
understanding is correct, are equivalent to edit decision files in video
applications, or .indd files in Adobe's InDesign page layout application.
These are, for the most part, reference files that keep track of the changes
you are trying to make to an image (in the case of photo editing apps).  There
is no image format until you save the file in Gimp.  That's why, if you try to
print a non-flattened image, Gimp complains and then offers to export it for
you.

I also erred in my previous post about UFRaw sending jpegs to Gimp.
Actually, I'm not certain what sort of file it sends to Gimp, but, I'm
guessing it's starts out as (or with components capable of being saved as) an
8-bit Tiff.

I believe that, if you use the stand alone version of UFRaw, it will give you
a choice of file types when you 'save as.'

. . . and that brings us back to what I read as the OP's central question.
In terms of image quality, are we better off making most of our adjustments in
Gimp after having used UFRaw to convert the raw image, or would we be wiser to
make whatever adjustment available to us in UFRaw before sending the image to
Gimp.

I would bet that, in my case, it's a moot point, as I will get acceptable
results either way that are close enough, given the uses to which I will put
the images, that my viewers would not discern between either approach.
Theoretically, however, I'm guessing that there may be a difference, and I'd
be curious to hear from someone with the technical depth to offer some
enlightenment.

This has turned out to be quite an interesting thread.  I'm glad I took the
time to read and respond.  Thanks, OP.

Caruso

--
Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Norman Silverstone-2]

 
> > Ok,  I want to make sure that I've asked my question clear enough before I
> > decide that you guys have blown me away with your technological knowledge. I'm
> > shooting in RAW and so I'm opening up a RAW file with UFRaw because without
> > opening the file first with UFRaw, I can't get it into into Gimp for Post
> > Processing. I hope I'm right so far. Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw
> > and whether I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it
> > to Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw converted it
> > to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks crappy in GIMP,
> > particulairly when zoomed in on?

I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
and a jpeg image = 2.6 MB. The developed RAW image from UFRaw saved at
98% jpeg = 17.2 MB and then that image loaded into GIMP and saved as xcf
= 17.0 MB.

Norman

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-10-02, Norman Silverstone <norman@...> wrote:
> I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
> tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
> that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
> and a jpeg image = 2.6 MB. The developed RAW image from UFRaw saved at
> 98% jpeg = 17.2 MB

What do you think are benefits of using jpegs with quality above 95%?

Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB TIFF instead (all minilabs I know
would reject TIFF with *any* compression, though...).

Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Norman Silverstone-2]

> > I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
> > tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
> > that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
> > and a jpeg image = 2.6 MB. The developed RAW image from UFRaw saved at
> > 98% jpeg = 17.2 MB
>
> What do you think are benefits of using jpegs with quality above 95%?

I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
somewhere which said "I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.
>
> Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB TIFF instead (all minilabs I know
> would reject TIFF with *any* compression, though...).

Why is that?

Norman

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Jernej Simončič-2]

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:59:11 +0100, Norman Silverstone wrote:

> I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
> somewhere which said "I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.

If you're archiving images that aren't compressed with lossy compression,
use a format that stores them losslessly. If the images are already
compressed with lossy compression (=JPEG), don't recompress them.

--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-10-03, Norman Silverstone <norman@...> wrote:
>> What do you think are benefits of using jpegs with quality above 95%?

> I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
> somewhere which said "I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.

>> Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB TIFF instead (all minilabs I know
>> would reject TIFF with *any* compression, though...).

> Why is that?

Why is WHAT???  You need to Trim the posting more precisely...

If you mean "why TIFF?":  Since TIFF provides no-artefacts storage at
the same size as what you got from your JPEG (which WILL create artefacts).

Why 8-bit?  I already discussed that; and since your input is 8-bit,
most probably you won't get any advantage from 16-bit.  (Well,
currently GIMP won't even produce 16-bit...)

Why compressed?  To save size...

Puzzled,
Ilya

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Norman Silverstone-2]

> >> Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB TIFF instead (all minilabs I know
> >> would reject TIFF with *any* compression, though...).
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Why is WHAT???  You need to Trim the posting more precisely...

I wonder if the questioner meant why do minilabs reject TIFF with *any*
compression?

Norman

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user