Windows 10, Gimp & Pentax

jgnfld · 09-07-2018, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Just to be clear, you imported TIFF into GIMP (2.8?), exported JPEG and kept EXIF data in the final JPEG?

GIMP 2.10 not 2.8. But yes.

**BigMackCam** · 09-07-2018, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by jgnfld

GIMP 2.10 not 2.8. But yes.

Ah, OK. That makes sense... It was a *big* release

**GUB** · 09-07-2018, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Ah, OK. That makes sense... It was a *big* release

Yes I am using 2.10 now and it seems fine - I had the issue with 2.8 (and on linux)

**BigMackCam** · 09-07-2018, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by GUB

Yes I am using 2.10 now and it seems fine - I had the issue with 2.8 (and on linux)

Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but...

How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue...

**GUB** · 09-07-2018, 05:25 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but...

How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue...

Well I built a new computer for it - I went from a dual core E6600 @ 3ghz (cpu benchmark 1500) and 8 gig ram to i7 7700 3.6ghz (cpu benchmark 10800) and 16 gig ram . the 2.10 on the i7 is considerably slower than 2.8 on the dual core. Haven't set up the GPU to help yet on either. Noticeably slow on decomposing.

jgnfld · 09-07-2018, 06:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but...

How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue...

Much slower to load. Not noticing much else.

**Cee Cee** · 09-07-2018, 07:21 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by jgnfld

I have exactly that setup except I have a K-70. The exif data can be read at Check files for metadata info every time whether the export is made without processing or after some post processing. Do be sure the "Save exif data" box is checked on the Advanced screen as you are exporting.

I haven't tried reading in .tiff and exporting to .jpg. Only reading and exporting to .jpg.

that's interesting, so it sounds as though it's capable of working or should work but my install doesn't. Ive tried on 2 different Win 10 PCs and the problem was the same on both installs, one being W10 64bit home (retail) the other W10 64bit Home (OEM upgraded from Win7) both on auto update. The download was from the gimp.org site. Now I really am confused

. I got no Idea

.

---------- Post added 09-08-18 at 12:32 PM ----------

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but...

How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue...

to be honest I didn't notice it being any slower, but I don't do a lot of heavy processing. in some respects I thought it was a bit snappier, but it has extra features like "shadows & Highlights" sliders which make it really easiy to do a quick tweet of dynamic range. I know you can do it by other ways but this is so much easier. Other features as well that I'm yet to expore as this exif issue has put a stop to all things at the moment.

**GUB** · 09-08-2018, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but...

How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue...

I am guessing the different response here may be due to usage. I export out of Darktable as a tiff. 180mb vs 15mb Jpg. This tiff opens and is processed as 16 bit in Gimp 2.10 while from what I can tell from some experimenting is that a jpg is processed as 8 bit.
So , jgnfld and CeeCee are you opening jpegs?

**BigMackCam** · 09-08-2018, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by GUB

I am guessing the different response here may be due to usage. I export out of Darktable as a tiff. 180mb vs 15mb Jpg. This tiff opens and is processed as 16 bit in Gimp 2.10 while from what I can tell from some experimenting is that a jpg is processed as 8 bit.
So , jgnfld and CeeCee are you opening jpegs?

That's one of the reasons I'm interested in 2.10 - the ability to work with 16 bit TIFF files.

And yes - JPEGs use 8 bit colour encoding. It's sufficient in many circumstances, but in the past I've noticed banding in colour gradients which can be annoying, hence I stick to TIFFs as a precaution. But large file sizes are the trade-off, so I fully understand someone choosing to work with JPEG if it works for them.

**GUB** · 09-08-2018, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

That's one of the reasons I'm interested in 2.10 - the ability to work with 16 bit TIFF files.

And yes - JPEGs use 8 bit colour encoding. It's sufficient in many circumstances, but in the past I've noticed banding in colour gradients which can be annoying, hence I stick to TIFFs as a precaution. But large file sizes are the trade-off, so I fully understand someone choosing to work with JPEG if it works for them.

Sky gradients sometimes show the 8 bit limitation. I wasn't sure whether an 8bit image may have still been processed with 16 bit precision so I did an experiment. I took a sunset with a sky gradient and exported it from darktable as a jpg and a tiff. Using the curves tool I dropped the contrast very low then next step I pulled it back. Result banding in the jpg and perfection in the tiff. But agreed the gain from working in tiff barely makes up for the resources demand.

Culture · 09-09-2018, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I readily accept your experience in this, as my tendency to work with TIFF is purely precautionary. Can I ask, what level of quality do you use when exporting your JPEGs? And do you notice much loss in quality, both from the initial export and the final GIMP export?

I use to export 100% jpeg quality from Darktable.
But based on some discussion on Google+ Darktable. I understood that you can export at 95% without affecting quality.
The benefit is smaller file size. But personally I export at 98%.

In gimp after all my edits I export 100%.

jgnfld · 09-10-2018, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by GUB

I am guessing the different response here may be due to usage. I export out of Darktable as a tiff. 180mb vs 15mb Jpg. This tiff opens and is processed as 16 bit in Gimp 2.10 while from what I can tell from some experimenting is that a jpg is processed as 8 bit.
So , jgnfld and CeeCee are you opening jpegs?

Tried both in my case.

**GUB** · 09-10-2018, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by jgnfld

Tried both in my case.

Out of curiosity does your 2.10 , when rendering a change, tile its way down an image compared to the quick image change in 2.8? I am wondering if i have a GPU issue.
And do you use the decomposing modes which I find have slowed the most?

**jbinpg** · 09-12-2018, 05:57 PM

Try toggling on Hardware Acceleration (use OpenCL) in Edit->Preferences->System Resources. It will offload some of the CPU load onto the GPU if your hardware allows it and you have a working OpenCL environment. Big speedup in many cases.

**GUB** · 09-12-2018, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by jbinpg

Try toggling on Hardware Acceleration (use OpenCL) in Edit->Preferences->System Resources. It will offload some of the CPU load onto the GPU if your hardware allows it and you have a working OpenCL environment. Big speedup in many cases.

OK that sent me off to finally work out how to get Opencl working in Ubuntu 18.04. Turned out to be now simple - install the nvidia drivers. Last time I tried - a few years ago - it had me bamboozled.
Results;

Darktable
export K-1 file as tiff with profiled denoise applied
No Opencl -- 34 seconds
OpenCL enabled ---- 18 seconds.

Gimp
No observable difference between Opencl and no Opencl. (tried Decompose HSV, apply colour curve , greyscale)

And for reference the above exported K-1 tiff opened in Gimp and Decompose HSV applied - 35 seconds to fully render.
I would like to know your result for HSV Decompose jbinpg

09-07-2018, 07:21 PM - 1 Like	#22
Cee Cee Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Glenroy, Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,441 Original Poster	Originally posted by jgnfld I have exactly that setup except I have a K-70. The exif data can be read at Check files for metadata info every time whether the export is made without processing or after some post processing. Do be sure the "Save exif data" box is checked on the Advanced screen as you are exporting. I haven't tried reading in .tiff and exporting to .jpg. Only reading and exporting to .jpg. that's interesting, so it sounds as though it's capable of working or should work but my install doesn't. Ive tried on 2 different Win 10 PCs and the problem was the same on both installs, one being W10 64bit home (retail) the other W10 64bit Home (OEM upgraded from Win7) both on auto update. The download was from the gimp.org site. Now I really am confused . I got no Idea. ---------- Post added 09-08-18 at 12:32 PM ---------- Originally posted by BigMackCam Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but... How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue... to be honest I didn't notice it being any slower, but I don't do a lot of heavy processing. in some respects I thought it was a bit snappier, but it has extra features like "shadows & Highlights" sliders which make it really easiy to do a quick tweet of dynamic range. I know you can do it by other ways but this is so much easier. Other features as well that I'm yet to expore as this exif issue has put a stop to all things at the moment.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gimp 2.10 is out!	Zelig	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	9	05-01-2018 09:04 PM
Night Post processing in Rawtherapee & Gimp	Kodiak	Photo Critique	3	10-28-2017 12:48 AM
Can new Windows 8 desktop be loaded with Windows 7?	barondla	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	8	08-19-2013 10:13 AM
GIMP 2.6.12 vs. GIMP 2.8.0	Vasyl	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	06-19-2012 02:00 PM
Windows users: upgrading to windows 7?	bonovox	General Talk	56	11-09-2009 07:55 AM

09-07-2018, 04:19 PM	#16
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by BigMackCam Just to be clear, you imported TIFF into GIMP (2.8?), exported JPEG and kept EXIF data in the final JPEG? GIMP 2.10 not 2.8. But yes.

09-07-2018, 04:24 PM	#17
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by jgnfld GIMP 2.10 not 2.8. But yes. Ah, OK. That makes sense... It was a big release

09-07-2018, 04:34 PM	#18
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by BigMackCam Ah, OK. That makes sense... It was a big release Yes I am using 2.10 now and it seems fine - I had the issue with 2.8 (and on linux)

09-07-2018, 04:36 PM	#19
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by GUB Yes I am using 2.10 now and it seems fine - I had the issue with 2.8 (and on linux) Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but... How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue...

09-07-2018, 05:25 PM - 1 Like	#20
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by BigMackCam Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but... How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue... Well I built a new computer for it - I went from a dual core E6600 @ 3ghz (cpu benchmark 1500) and 8 gig ram to i7 7700 3.6ghz (cpu benchmark 10800) and 16 gig ram . the 2.10 on the i7 is considerably slower than 2.8 on the dual core. Haven't set up the GPU to help yet on either. Noticeably slow on decomposing.

09-07-2018, 06:19 PM - 1 Like	#21
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by BigMackCam Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but... How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue... Much slower to load. Not noticing much else.

09-08-2018, 12:55 AM	#23
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by BigMackCam Apologies to the OP for moving slightly off-topic, but... How do you find the performance of 2.10 compared to 2.8? I heard that it's much slower. I'd like to move to the new version, but not if performance is a significant issue... I am guessing the different response here may be due to usage. I export out of Darktable as a tiff. 180mb vs 15mb Jpg. This tiff opens and is processed as 16 bit in Gimp 2.10 while from what I can tell from some experimenting is that a jpg is processed as 8 bit. So , jgnfld and CeeCee are you opening jpegs?

09-08-2018, 01:17 AM	#24
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by GUB I am guessing the different response here may be due to usage. I export out of Darktable as a tiff. 180mb vs 15mb Jpg. This tiff opens and is processed as 16 bit in Gimp 2.10 while from what I can tell from some experimenting is that a jpg is processed as 8 bit. So , jgnfld and CeeCee are you opening jpegs? That's one of the reasons I'm interested in 2.10 - the ability to work with 16 bit TIFF files. And yes - JPEGs use 8 bit colour encoding. It's sufficient in many circumstances, but in the past I've noticed banding in colour gradients which can be annoying, hence I stick to TIFFs as a precaution. But large file sizes are the trade-off, so I fully understand someone choosing to work with JPEG if it works for them.

09-08-2018, 02:00 AM	#25
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by BigMackCam That's one of the reasons I'm interested in 2.10 - the ability to work with 16 bit TIFF files. And yes - JPEGs use 8 bit colour encoding. It's sufficient in many circumstances, but in the past I've noticed banding in colour gradients which can be annoying, hence I stick to TIFFs as a precaution. But large file sizes are the trade-off, so I fully understand someone choosing to work with JPEG if it works for them. Sky gradients sometimes show the 8 bit limitation. I wasn't sure whether an 8bit image may have still been processed with 16 bit precision so I did an experiment. I took a sunset with a sky gradient and exported it from darktable as a jpg and a tiff. Using the curves tool I dropped the contrast very low then next step I pulled it back. Result banding in the jpg and perfection in the tiff. But agreed the gain from working in tiff barely makes up for the resources demand.

09-09-2018, 10:28 PM	#26
Culture Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Vaasa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 818	Originally posted by BigMackCam I readily accept your experience in this, as my tendency to work with TIFF is purely precautionary. Can I ask, what level of quality do you use when exporting your JPEGs? And do you notice much loss in quality, both from the initial export and the final GIMP export? I use to export 100% jpeg quality from Darktable. But based on some discussion on Google+ Darktable. I understood that you can export at 95% without affecting quality. The benefit is smaller file size. But personally I export at 98%. In gimp after all my edits I export 100%.

09-10-2018, 04:28 AM	#27
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by GUB I am guessing the different response here may be due to usage. I export out of Darktable as a tiff. 180mb vs 15mb Jpg. This tiff opens and is processed as 16 bit in Gimp 2.10 while from what I can tell from some experimenting is that a jpg is processed as 8 bit. So , jgnfld and CeeCee are you opening jpegs? Tried both in my case.

09-10-2018, 04:50 AM	#28
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by jgnfld Tried both in my case. Out of curiosity does your 2.10 , when rendering a change, tile its way down an image compared to the quick image change in 2.8? I am wondering if i have a GPU issue. And do you use the decomposing modes which I find have slowed the most?

09-12-2018, 05:57 PM	#29
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	Try toggling on Hardware Acceleration (use OpenCL) in Edit->Preferences->System Resources. It will offload some of the CPU load onto the GPU if your hardware allows it and you have a working OpenCL environment. Big speedup in many cases.

09-12-2018, 10:56 PM	#30
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by jbinpg Try toggling on Hardware Acceleration (use OpenCL) in Edit->Preferences->System Resources. It will offload some of the CPU load onto the GPU if your hardware allows it and you have a working OpenCL environment. Big speedup in many cases. OK that sent me off to finally work out how to get Opencl working in Ubuntu 18.04. Turned out to be now simple - install the nvidia drivers. Last time I tried - a few years ago - it had me bamboozled. Results; Darktable export K-1 file as tiff with profiled denoise applied No Opencl -- 34 seconds OpenCL enabled ---- 18 seconds. Gimp No observable difference between Opencl and no Opencl. (tried Decompose HSV, apply colour curve , greyscale) And for reference the above exported K-1 tiff opened in Gimp and Decompose HSV applied - 35 seconds to fully render. I would like to know your result for HSV Decompose jbinpg