Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
Locked
12
12
Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
 
|
This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality
jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier today. I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw without a lot of manual tweaking. I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. Who has ideas ? For starters, which raw conversion tools (regardless of brand, OS or not, platform) do a good job of generating jpgs from raws ? Thanks _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:34 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality > jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier > today. > > I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not > possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw > without a lot of manual tweaking. > > I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. A lot of linux users seem to think that ufraw is about the best. Some people appear to be running DPP using WINE. http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UV22 What if we wrote a raw converter plugin that allowed users to call their favorite command line raw converter ? Make it generic enough that people could use the converters that Nikon, Canon, etc. all ship ? _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:40 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:34 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: > > This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality > > jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier > > today. > > > > I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not > > possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw > > without a lot of manual tweaking. > > > > I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. > > A lot of linux users seem to think that ufraw is about the best. > > Some people appear to be running DPP using WINE. > > http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UV22 > > What if we wrote a raw converter plugin that allowed users to call their > favorite command line raw converter ? Make it generic enough that > people could use the converters that Nikon, Canon, etc. all ship ? DPP in ubuntu. http://panospace.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/canon-digital-photo-professional-in-ubuntu-linux/ _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
On Wednesday 23 Dec 2009 20:34:18 Linuxguy123 wrote:
> This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality > jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier > today. > > I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not > possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw > without a lot of manual tweaking. > > I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. > > Who has ideas ? > > For starters, which raw conversion tools (regardless of brand, OS or > not, platform) do a good job of generating jpgs from raws ? Well, hang on, I don't think it's that simple. I'm about to sound like I'm contradicting my earlier statements here, but I'm not. Digikam can do a good job, a very good job. As far as I know, both ufraw and digikam use dcraw to actually do the raw decoding. dcraw is the only raw decoding tool that applies NO corrections of any sort to its output. All other tools on all OSes apply some kind of preset gamma and/or curve - so their initial output will look "better" but to my mind it is defeating the object of using RAW in the first place. I *like* the fact that I get, er, RAW in the raw, as it were :) ufraw does stuff to the output from dcraw that I don't understand, so that is why it looks "better" than Digikam. Now, it takes longer to get good results because of this, but I've been doing a lot of comparisons of tools recently and I have to say that Digikam gives me the best results, but with the most effort. I've hesitated to say this before now because I was struggling to understand colour management but thanks to this discussion today I've realised I don't need it, so that's good :) As an example, let me describe how it works with my Nikon. If I use Nikon CaptureNX I can pump RAW files through it with a preset of, say, "Vivid" and it will pump out JPEGs that look great. But I can get *Identical* results by shooting in JPEG with the camera settings set to "Vivid". So why bother with RAW at all? To my mind the whole point of RAW is that I want to adjust each picture individually. If you want to apply the same settings to every picture, shoot JPEG and let the camera do it. In Digikam, I open the RAW file in the editor and tweak White Balance, saturation, noise, and sharpness until I'm happy. I use different settings for each picture. What you, I think, want is a plugin or filter that can save a set of default RAW conversion parameters and pass a queue of files through it. This is a completely different proposition than changing the raw import tool. You would either need sensible presets for every make of camera out there, or permit the user to save a selection of various tool settings as a preset. I think that would be useful, especially in your case, and would leave the current RAW editing workflow unchanged. Mark > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-users mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users > _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
----- Original Message ---- > From: Linuxguy123 <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Sent: Wed, December 23, 2009 3:52:48 PM > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ? > > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:40 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:34 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: > > > This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality > > > jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier > > > today. > > > > > > I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not > > > possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw > > > without a lot of manual tweaking. > > > > > > I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. > > > > A lot of linux users seem to think that ufraw is about the best. > > > > Some people appear to be running DPP using WINE. > > > > http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UV22 > > > > What if we wrote a raw converter plugin that allowed users to call their > > favorite command line raw converter ? Make it generic enough that > > people could use the converters that Nikon, Canon, etc. all ship ? > > DPP in ubuntu. > http://panospace.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/canon-digital-photo-professional-in-ubuntu-linux/ > That debug trick did not work on the last version I tried. DPP "upgrade" even with the reg hack didnt finish and bombed out. If someone works it out. please share. Not to take away from Digikam, it is a great tool for what I am using it for ( organizing my pictures). I just miss DPP for the "developing of raws" work flow I got used to _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
----- Original Message ---- > From: Linuxguy123 <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Sent: Wed, December 23, 2009 3:40:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ? > > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:34 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: > > This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality > > jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier > > today. > > > > I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not > > possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw > > without a lot of manual tweaking. > > > > I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. > > A lot of linux users seem to think that ufraw is about the best. > > Some people appear to be running DPP using WINE. > > http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UV22 > > What if we wrote a raw converter plugin that allowed users to call their > favorite command line raw converter ? Make it generic enough that > people could use the converters that Nikon, Canon, etc. all ship ? > _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
All the raw files seem to have some sort of embedded jpg image in them
that is extractable via commonly available tools. (Exiftool, exiv, etc.) If they didn't have the embedded images, we wouldn't be able to preview them in digiKam. Furthermore, it seems as though a lot of people would consider the in camera generated image as a good place to start when tweaking a raw image - if it isn't a final image itself. It should be possible to use the embedded image to calculate all the image parameters to generate the jpg from the raw file such that it matches the embedded image. For starters, we could generate histograms. One could then add code to the converter that tweaked the raw generated image parameters until its histogram matched that of the image embedded in the raw file. By doing pixel to mapped pixel comparisons between the raw file and the embedded file, one should also be able to generate color curves for doing the conversion. Comments/ideas ? Thanks _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Should digiKam have an embedded image extractor tool ? Was: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
Now that I realize that raw files contain one or more embedded jpg
images, some of considerable size, I'm wondering if a tool should be added to digiKam to extract the image in addition to or in lieu of doing a raw conversion ? Here I am sitting with several thousand raw files with no jpgs. I only need a full size jpg for images that are going to be printed in large formats. As we know from our discussions here today, generating jpgs from raws that consistently look as good as the in camera jpgs is time consuming. So why don't I just generate all my jpgs from the jpg embedded in the raw, at least as a starting point. I can do that via a command line script easily enough and I probably will. This brings about an interesting question: is there demand to build this functionality right into digiKam ? Thanks _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
---- Original Message ----
> From: Linuxguy123 <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Sent: Wed, December 23, 2009 4:53:50 PM > Subject: [Digikam-users] Should digiKam have an embedded image extractor tool ? Was: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ? > > Now that I realize that raw files contain one or more embedded jpg > images, some of considerable size, I'm wondering if a tool should be > added to digiKam to extract the image in addition to or in lieu of doing > a raw conversion ? > > Here I am sitting with several thousand raw files with no jpgs. I only > need a full size jpg for images that are going to be printed in large > formats. As we know from our discussions here today, generating jpgs > from raws that consistently look as good as the in camera jpgs is time > consuming. > > So why don't I just generate all my jpgs from the jpg embedded in the > raw, at least as a starting point. I can do that via a command line > script easily enough and I probably will. > > This brings about an interesting question: is there demand to build this > functionality right into digiKam ? > > Thanks > I would not mind seeing that as an option. It could make some of my work easier. When ever I take pictures of my fmaily, I save almost all of them. I shoot in RAW only so I would need to convert the bad to semigood ones then delete the original. If I could, right off the bat, strip out the jpg I see in the preview, and it be big enough for maybe 5x7. I would use it. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
Linuxguy123 píše v St 23. 12. 2009 v 14:47 -0700:
> It should be possible to use the embedded image to calculate all the > image parameters to generate the jpg from the raw file such that it > matches the embedded image. There are people who did that: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~ture/eos10d/ or at least tried: http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Profiling-between-two-images,15 Regards, Milan Knizek knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz http://www.milan-knizek.net - About linux and photography (Czech language only) _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
Le Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:53:50 +0100, Linuxguy123 <[hidden email]> a
écrit: > Now that I realize that raw files contain one or more embedded jpg > images, some of considerable size, I'm wondering if a tool should be > added to digiKam to extract the image in addition to or in lieu of doing > a raw conversion ? > > Here I am sitting with several thousand raw files with no jpgs. I only > need a full size jpg for images that are going to be printed in large > formats. As we know from our discussions here today, generating jpgs > from raws that consistently look as good as the in camera jpgs is time > consuming. > > So why don't I just generate all my jpgs from the jpg embedded in the > raw, at least as a starting point. I can do that via a command line > script easily enough and I probably will. > > This brings about an interesting question: is there demand to build this > functionality right into digiKam ? > > Thanks I'm not sure to understand you, but, if you mean embed JPEG could be used to workflow I have some doubts... Generally, I think embed JPEG are not mainly in full resolution nor compressed with a fine quality set. If not why the RAW+JPG shooting mode exist ? After, I think it's easily possible to extract embed JPG from RAW file with command line tool like Exiftool or Exiv2 (it's what Digikam use to show preview I think). And more you can use software like Nautilus-actions tool to automatise this for a whole repertory or a selection of files, but I don't see here the advantage to shoot in RAW in this case. ;) -- Nicolas Boulesteix - Chasseur de lueurs - http://www.photonoxx.fr _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
Le Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:40:34 +0100, Linuxguy123 <[hidden email]> a
écrit: > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:34 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: >> This thread is a continuation of the "How do you generate good quality >> jpegs from raws, quickly, automatically ?" thread I started earlier >> today. >> >> I was surprised to hear just about everyone reply that it was not >> possible to get jpegs from raws that rivaled the jpg embedded in the raw >> without a lot of manual tweaking. >> >> I am interested in improving the raw conversion tool in digiKam. > > A lot of linux users seem to think that ufraw is about the best. > > Some people appear to be running DPP using WINE. > > http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UV22 > > What if we wrote a raw converter plugin that allowed users to call their > favorite command line raw converter ? Make it generic enough that > people could use the converters that Nikon, Canon, etc. all ship ? I would be tempted to say : manufacturer software have an access to all the technical data about process use to create RAW files, so it should be easier to get what you want to shoot with their. But if you speak about DPP don't forget (I think ?) it only managed RAW from Canon camera. Personally, I don't think the perfect tool exist. -- Nicolas Boulesteix - Chasseur de lueurs - http://www.photonoxx.fr _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Greenwood-2
Le Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:54:53 +0100, Mark Greenwood
<[hidden email]> a écrit: > ........ > As an example, let me describe how it works with my Nikon. If I use > Nikon CaptureNX I can pump RAW files through it with a preset of, say, > "Vivid" and it will pump out JPEGs that look great. But I can get > *Identical* results by shooting in JPEG with the camera settings set to > "Vivid". So why bother with RAW at all? To my mind the whole point of > RAW is that I want to adjust each picture individually. If you want to > apply the same settings to every picture, shoot JPEG and let the camera > do it. Personnaly, I don't have to manage a lot of RAW file to produce JPEG (or TIFF). I use Digikam to manage all my photos (tag, organize, etc...), and treat only some selected files with CaptureNX. I'm not agree to say that starting with a near JPEG shooted decoded RAW is a useless thing. I use too CaptureNX2, and I don't use it to just get the same thing than I can get in shooting in JPEG. the first thing is RAW offer Burning-up and underexposure correction possibility. With JPEG, a burned zone stay burned... RAW permit to get things from zero, but why, if I set intentionally my camera it will be not valuable to start with what I want to get ? The most often, my use of CaptureNX consist in what follows : Correct, if needed, exposure (sometimes) and whiteBalance (rarely) Correct, if any, burned-up and underexposed zones (CaptureNX2 have a great and easy tool for that) and now, begin the treatment like local contrast (u-point), BW conversion, glowing effect, blur etc... And I appreciate to don't have to find initial set each time. After, on some forum I meet some people who don't mind about camera shoot parameters because they can set after with RAW... it's not my way of taking photos. -- Nicolas Boulesteix - Chasseur de lueurs - http://www.photonoxx.fr _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:47 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> All the raw files seem to have some sort of embedded jpg image in them > that is extractable via commonly available tools. (Exiftool, exiv, etc.) > If they didn't have the embedded images, we wouldn't be able to preview > them in digiKam. > > Furthermore, it seems as though a lot of people would consider the in > camera generated image as a good place to start when tweaking a raw > image - if it isn't a final image itself. > > It should be possible to use the embedded image to calculate all the > image parameters to generate the jpg from the raw file such that it > matches the embedded image. > > For starters, we could generate histograms. One could then add code to > the converter that tweaked the raw generated image parameters until its > histogram matched that of the image embedded in the raw file. > > By doing pixel to mapped pixel comparisons between the raw file and the > embedded file, one should also be able to generate color curves for > doing the conversion. I did a lot of reading and this might work. But generating color profiles using an IT8.7 target and using a raw converter that supports the use of color profiles is the ultimate answer. Here is some interesting reading: http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Profiling-between-two-images http://sourceforge.net/projects/ufraw/forums/forum/434060/topic/2376782 http://sourceforge.net/projects/ufraw/forums/forum/434060/topic/2297961 http://lprof.sourceforge.net/help/ufraw.html I'm off to buy an IT8.7 target tomorrow. I'll report back how I make out. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Should digiKam have an embedded image extractor tool ? Was: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Photonoxx
Photonoxx píše v Čt 24. 12. 2009 v 00:23 +0100:
> Generally, I think embed JPEG are not mainly in full resolution nor > compressed with a fine quality set. If not why the RAW+JPG shooting mode > exist ? > That depends on the camera - EOS 5D MII produces 21 Mpx image, which is too much. I put images on web to display and for this the large preview is more than good usually. I still keep raw files to be able to convert those images I would like to print or where the camera JPEG failed. > After, I think it's easily possible to extract embed JPG from RAW file > with command line tool like Exiftool or Exiv2 (it's what Digikam use to > show preview I think). And more you can use software like Nautilus-actions > tool to automatise this for a whole repertory or a selection of files, but > I don't see here the advantage to shoot in RAW in this case. ;) It is about convenience - I have quickly camera JPEGs previews available in acceptable quality and keep raw as a backup (negative?). It is difficult to convert raw files on slow netbooks. And, I recall that some old Canon camera (10D? 300D?) recorded full resolution JPEG directly in CR2 file (in shooting mode RAW+JPEG), so it needed to be extracted anyway. At the moment, I still use CLI script to rename raw files (digikam keeps the ugly upper case extensions), extract the large preview JPEG and move CR2 files to a subdirectory. It is faster then handling within digikam, but I admit it depends on what the photographer wants. Regards, Milan Knizek knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz http://www.milan-knizek.net - About linux and photography (Czech language only) _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Linuxguy123
Linuxguy123 píše v St 23. 12. 2009 v 19:51 -0700:
> I did a lot of reading and this might work. But generating color > profiles using an IT8.7 target and using a raw converter that supports > the use of color profiles is the ultimate answer. Do not get mistaken - using the colorimetric approach only will result in good (hopefully) colours, which is not what the camera does (convert colours with preference of skin-tones, green, etc., adjust tone curve, saturation). A photographer usually wants to get pleasing (good looking) images, not high-fidelity images. The ICC profile will do only the first step and unless you use an ICC profile editor to store the manual adjustments in the profile, the other corrections are to be done in image editor manually... With UFRaw, you have better chances for automation, since you can adjust linear curve (before gamma is applied), lightness curve (in L*a*b* space after gamma/ICC profile is applied), saturation and keep these settings for later use. However, you still do not have the possibility of unique colour adjustments (e.g. make skin tones warmer and do not affect too much the other colours). Regards, Milan Knizek knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz http://www.milan-knizek.net - About linux and photography (Czech language only) _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
Am Donnerstag, 24. Dezember 2009 schrieb Milan Knížek:
> Linuxguy123 píše v St 23. 12. 2009 v 19:51 -0700: > > I did a lot of reading and this might work. But generating color > > profiles using an IT8.7 target and using a raw converter that > > supports the use of color profiles is the ultimate answer. > > Do not get mistaken - using the colorimetric approach only will > result in good (hopefully) colours, which is not what the camera > does (convert colours with preference of skin-tones, green, etc., > adjust tone curve, saturation). A photographer usually wants to > get pleasing (good looking) images, not high-fidelity images. I think it is a little bit more than that. With such a ICC file you get a exact (within the limits of the sensor) copy of the scene, including gamma, curve and saturation correction to get it. From a technical point of view this is the best you can get. What you don't get are the emotions in the picture. For this you have to adjust several parameters, and sometimes you will add stuff you normally avoid to get (like false colours and noise). But as a base this work-flow may be the best start. I am still trying several ways to get the best out of my pictures. And it does not make much sense to fix some green (or red or blue) colour in your picture if you don't use a colour managed environment. This includes the printing stuff as well. Sadly most print labs don't offer colour management (at least here in Germany). > > The ICC profile will do only the first step and unless you use an > ICC profile editor to store the manual adjustments in the profile, > the other corrections are to be done in image editor manually... > > With UFRaw, you have better chances for automation, since you can > adjust linear curve (before gamma is applied), lightness curve (in > L*a*b* space after gamma/ICC profile is applied), saturation and > keep these settings for later use. > > However, you still do not have the possibility of unique colour > adjustments (e.g. make skin tones warmer and do not affect too much > the other colours). It would be great if ufraw gets this settings. As RawTherapee will become GPLed software, the developer may take a look at it. This software has some really fine features. > > Regards, > > Milan Knizek > knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz > http://www.milan-knizek.net - About linux and photography (Czech > language only) Martin _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
> It would be great if ufraw gets this settings. As RawTherapee will > become GPLed software, the developer may take a look at it. This > software has some really fine features. Does someone know about the status or timeframe of this? Last time I checked, there were only vague postings at the bottom of a forum discussion. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Should digiKam have an embedded image extractor tool ? Was: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Photonoxx
> I'm not sure to understand you, but, if you mean embed JPEG could be used > to workflow I have some doubts... > > Generally, I think embed JPEG are not mainly in full resolution nor > compressed with a fine quality set. If not why the RAW+JPG shooting mode > exist ? I think there are usecases for this. Sometimes, you may not want to bother with tweaking options to access your image for editing. And I have seen NEF files with full resolution embedded JPG. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Idea for getting in camera quality jpeg conversions... was Re: Building a better raw conversion tool for digiKam ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Milan Knížek
On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 09:59 +0100, Milan Knížek wrote:
> Linuxguy123 píše v St 23. 12. 2009 v 19:51 -0700: > > > I did a lot of reading and this might work. But generating color > > profiles using an IT8.7 target and using a raw converter that supports > > the use of color profiles is the ultimate answer. > > Do not get mistaken - using the colorimetric approach only will result > in good (hopefully) colours, which is not what the camera does (convert > colours with preference of skin-tones, green, etc., adjust tone curve, > saturation). A photographer usually wants to get pleasing (good looking) > images, not high-fidelity images. I am fully aware of this. Canon ships several profiles with DPP to allow for specific types of image enhancement. (Ie Portrait, Landscape, Vivid, etc.) I intend to generate my profile and then compare it to the Canon profiles and edit accordingly. One of the things that profile generation allows us to do is build profiles based on different types of lighting. > The ICC profile will do only the first step and unless you use an ICC > profile editor to store the manual adjustments in the profile, the other > corrections are to be done in image editor manually... Agreed. > With UFRaw, you have better chances for automation, since you can adjust > linear curve (before gamma is applied), lightness curve (in L*a*b* space > after gamma/ICC profile is applied), saturation and keep these settings > for later use. Agreed. > However, you still do not have the possibility of unique colour > adjustments (e.g. make skin tones warmer and do not affect too much the > other colours). That is what different profiles are for. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
«
Return to digikam-users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |