Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.
When will the version 0.19 will release??
I second the question. The current release is unusable with my IR camera because of a bug, this is allegedly fixed in the current CVS version, for which I wait more than a year ago. Others have new cameras, unsupported in the current release.
Of course I understand that this is free software, developed in free time. However, when it takes so long, pre-release versions would be very nice.
Although I'm no geek, I decided to try to compile it myself. I didn't get very far, however, as some required libraries are no longer obtainable…
You look for the Windows version, right?
(On Linux there aren't any difficulties to compile the CVS version)
Will there be a next release at all…? The silence worries me, to say at least.
The last update dates back to the 20th Feb. 2011. Have I to be concerned about the abandoning of the development of ufraw and its windows installer? None of the newest NEF-formats ist implemented…
Of course, the silence worries me too! It would be really a pitty if ufraw wouldn't be further useful. It's the best raw converter I've thitherto used…
Pascal de Bruijn
As far as I can tell, development has continued as usual.
There just hasn't been a new release yet. But the code in CVS should support newer Nikon camera's just fine.
I concur with pmjdebruijn as to development: I am on the latest CVS version and I update once a moth - sometimes there are minor updates, sometimes larger like a new DCRAW version but development there certainly is.
I feel bad for those who are running a Windows environment because it seems nobody seems to have stepped up to the plate to provide monthly binaries to the Windows community - it simply seems to be a distro that does not tend to create a lot of free activity or community-type assistance.
I do run Windows at work so I sympathize but it is not an issue that you could ever put at the feet of the UFRaw developers:they develop the code, compiling it into a usable binary is the job of either the user or the community. I am sorry but I really wouldn't know what else to advise you except for investing time in learning how to compile software or start your own opensource project to attract those who can - it cannot be that hard.
there have been people doing some great and important development work for Ufraw, such as Niels: to be clear, I really appreciate what they have been doing! Though, I would define all their work as "maintenance" (support for new cameras, fix of some bugs). There have been no new feature in ufraw for one and half a year, possibly more… And new features to add (or old ones to improve) are not certainly missing. I really do not understand why there are no new releases: expecting that people builds the code from cvs is quite far from reality (if we speak about "normal" users), even if most of the distributions already take the code from CVS. Of course I am not speaking about Windows, that is a different problem.
I am certainly no the one that can take any decision or suggest any, but I really think that Ufraw developers should decide what they want to do with the development of this tool and clarify it to the users.
Ufraw is great tool and I have been using it for years now, but I am really thinking about switching to another raw converter, probably Photivo.
Talking about bloat-free software, which is what UFRaw is and comparing it to all-singing, all-dancing wonderful packages like Photivo or Darktable is really no comparison one should be making.
UFRaw seems to have a philosophy: do one thing and do it very well, remaining a slim package and offering CLI support for f.i. batch processing. In that, the programmers have succeeded.
I have standardized my workflow around bash-scripts that pipe UFRaw output through ImageMagick and then NeatImageCLI for output. The UFRaw approach suits me perfectly and believe you me: I have tried and tested every single raw converter out there - I keep coming back to UFRaw all the time, every time.
digiKam, Photivo, Darktable, RawTherapee - they all go in the direction of emulating or surpassing Lightroom, ACR or other commercial raw peograms that mix raw conversion with post-processing. They are all excellent solutions and you will not see me talk down on any of them but UFRaw will always suit a particular type of photographer. If that means the package is now mature and is only in need of some maintenance - all the better! There's always something to wish for like more demosaicing algorithms, usage of LibRaw etc. but only the developers can decide whether to do that and stay true to the original philosophy of the program.
Just my humble opinion - I've been using UFRaw for years and you could visit my site at http://www.mike.bing-photography.com to see the results.
Mike, I completely agree with you about the philosophy of Ufraw, which I have always liked (and this is the reason why I am reluctant picking up another tool). I also use ufraw batch mode quite a lot along with imagemagick and all my flow, including the manual one, is based on bash scripts. In the manual flow they integrate ufraw, gimp, and, in some cases, NoiseNinja.
I am considering Photivo because it is the closest one to ufraw in philosophy, but still it supports multiple noise reduction and interpolation algorithms. Btw, since some months photivo also supports batch mode. For example, I feel like noise reduction is something quite outdated in Ufraw. Wawelet denoise is really nice, but it lacks the possibility to apply it on separate color channels and this limits its usefulness.
By the way, I was not criticizing ufraw, but, as I have done one year ago, I was asking to developers to state what they would like to do in the future.
I quickly (for now) checked your website and there are some good photos, congrats.
Concerning post 8:
I've neither the time nor the kowledge to compile a windows installer myself. That's far beyond my skills. I'm photographer, not IT-specialist.
I use ufraw since several years and I love it because it's slim, very fast and produces excellent (!) results. I tried other open source raw converters too and they didn't convince me at all. They are slow and resource demanding because they are overloaded by useless gimmicks, often buggy and unstable, and the results don't equal those of ufraw… Nothing I'd like to work with…
As said, I sympathize and fully understand. I'm not an IT-specialist either but it seems compiling on Linux is so much easier than on Windows - I can only philosophize why that would be the case.
I have the same experience you have with UFRaw and the same objections about the other contenders.
Not to say you yourself should compile, but can't you start something like a website/community appealing for help to attract a few tech-heads that would be willing to sink some free time into creating Windows installers on a monthly basis? That's basically what the Linux communities to; they have users like you and myself. And then they have packagers who voluntarily supply the compiled binaries in return for eternal fame and gratitude.
Gerard van Vuuren
Unless you're a hardcore gamer there's absolutely no reason not to install Linux.
You could make your box dual boot Linux and Windows.
You're using open source software in Windows,well go all the way and install open source OS.
For a non IT person I would recommend Mint Linux.
Linux is not an option at all for me. I use my computer over 90% only professionally: Image editing and printing, image database, text processing and dtp synchronously. There is no alternative to windows, not in consideration of my job…
Concerning the start up of a windows ufraw communitiy it's the same problem as above: Neither skills nor spare time. The day would have to have 28 hours and to organize a blog or community is a riddle wrapped in an enigma for me. That's really not my cup of tea… ;)
"That's really not my cup of tea."
And why would it be anybody else's then?
So what you're restating here is that you expect somebody else to do something for you, for no other reason that you want it. You'll not break a sweat to do it or assist doing it.
You would indeed better off with a commercial program. There you can tell the programmers what to do.
You misunderstood me! I've not the slightest skills in programming, compiling oder carrying on a blog or so…
You can ask me nearly everything about photography or lighting setups or the zoology of canids and I will be quick to reply.
But computers, programs, compilers, web pages? No chance, that's to deep for me… ;) That's all…
I understand you perfectly well! Your original question was "Have I to be concerned about the abandoning of the development of ufraw and its windows installer?"
There's two answers to that: No, you do NOT have to concerned about the abandoning of the development of UFRaw and yes, you do have to be concerned about the abandoning of a windows installer I suppose.
The first, development of UFRaw itself, takes place at this site as well as UFRaw's home page. The latter really has nothing to do with UFRaw development as such. The developers have attempted to provide windows installers in the past but have also made it clear this is not an easy task. Udi has said literally that he's "not a big fan of this operating system".
There are several versions of GIMP that come with UFRaw preinstalled though I have no Idea whether these are really updated compiles with CVS changes since 0.18 incorporated. Maybe you'll get lucky here: http://www.gimpchat.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4329&start=0
I'll have a look into the requirements and see if I can step up to the plate and provide you with an updated Windows installer myself although I, like Udi, do not particularly like Windows as a platform. I do realize that Windows users should be recommended for trying to use opensource programs and deserve a bit of assistance, especially when it comes to UFRaw.
Please watch this space!
Niels Kristian Bech Jensen
Back from vacation I will make a short follow-up to this thread. What I do is pure maintainance. UFRaw has all the features I need since I am using it as a GIMP plugin. All my work is done in Linux so I do not care much about the Windows platform. If someone steps up to make Windows builds I will be glad to help with advice though.
You should also remember that both Udi and I have work and family. Work on UFRaw is done in our dwindling spare time. The best way to get new features included in the code is to supply patches on this site.
The next release will come when the code is ready and Udi finds the time to build and test the packages. He has told me that the Windows release take several evenings to build and test.
Windows development is not only a problem with UFRaw. The GIMP project is also looking for Windows developers. Take a look at www.gimp.org in the news section.
Hi there Niels! I'd agree that UFRaw has all the features I need but I do recognize the need to keep up with DCRAW releases to account for new camera models. I was going to see if I could give a Windows-build a try but like you, I'm a Linux-only guy. Seeing that it is as complicated as that I'm getting second thoughts. I'd normally leave it to Windows users to come up with a champion of their own to build such distro-specific packages but I kind of felt bad for this one guy. I might still give it a try. See it as my contribution if you will although me contributing to something for Windows does sound rather odd I must say ;-)
Is there any recipe or has Udi written some kind of README for this or am I on my own? Never worked with MinGW before so I'm a bit hesitant.
There are a few lines about Windows in the README file IIRC. The main documentation for building UFRaw on Windows is here http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html but it has not been updated recently.
"If someone steps up to make Windows builds I will be glad to help with advice though."
Maybe I'm not the best candidate, but I already gave it a try. However, some of the required files listed in the guide are no longer available, so I didn't get very far. Could someone provide them?
Well what kind of development is going on that prevents small, reasonably frequent releases to support new cameras? For example, the EOS600D is not yet supported, and is well over a year old. I'm not incapable of building from source, being on Linux, but I prefer to have my distributions packages rather than custom built packages. If the developers do not "release" any changes, they won't be picked up by the package maintainers for these distributions and consequently the packages remain out of date.
Whats to prevent smaller, more frequent versioning to support recently released cameras, and more occasional long term releases for bigger changes, feature additions, etc? Another reason one might not want to build from source is due to the fact that changes going onto a CVS branch aren't necessarily stable.
Bit of a shame really, 'cause i feel like I'm forced to either build from source or use Canon DPP in the interim, neither of which are a particularly exciting prospect.
After a period of 21 month waiting without the necessary updates on UFRaw (Win) I've now changed to a much better program and do all my conversions on it! I've really enough now from this bunch of disorganised lazy morons. :(