Can digiKam write to Canon cr2 files?

[Elle Stone]

Can digiKam write to Canon cr2 files?

Does it write to any raw files?

Does anyone on the list allow it to write to their raw files?

Elle
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Remco Viëtor]

On Monday 26 August 2013 14:55:04 Elle Stone wrote:
> Can digiKam write to Canon cr2 files?
No idea.

> Does it write to any raw files?
There is an option in the settings dialog (metadata section) to allow
writing to RAW files, but it is still marked as experimental (in version
3.3.0)

> Does anyone on the list allow it to write to their raw files?

No way I'll allow any program to write to my RAW files:
I consider them my 'negatives' and don't want any more risk than necessary
of losing them. Writing to them increases the risk, so is a big nono for
me. the Digikam database plus the XMP sidecars should be enough for normal
use (with proper backups of course).

Don't forget that most RAW formats have data in a obfuscated and
unpublished format, so any interpretation is obtained through reverse
engineering the format. That means there's a  chance that part of some
formats is misunderstood, and writing to such a format might make the file
unreadable; perhaps not for the program that wrote the faulty data, but
another program or a newer version could have a better, stricter, or just
different interpretation of the RAW data, and fail to read such a file.

Remco
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Jean-François Rabasse-2]

Hello,

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Elle Stone wrote:

> Can digiKam write to Canon cr2 files?
>
> Does it write to any raw files?

I don't know for Canon raw files, but as Digikam uses the exiv2 library,
probably the answer is to be found in exiv2 supported formats.

   http://dev.exiv2.org/wiki/exiv2/Supported_image_formats

And the above page says yes for CR2 files, so...

And this page says also :
« Be sure to test carefully if your applications work well with images
   modified by Exiv2. ».
Sounds wise.

> Does anyone on the list allow it to write to their raw files?

I've abandonned using raw files these last two years, but in the past
my raw images were readonly locked, always.
I totally agree with what Remco said 15 mn ago, and I think too that
sidecar files are the most safe way to keep/edit metadata with risk zero.
When embedding metadata into images files comes necessary, it's always
possible to write to a safe format, PNG or JPEG.

Another good reason to use sidecar files comes when you use several
programs to work on your images. Some are broken wrt metadata updating
(e.g. The GIMP) and having metadata in a safe place (readonly sidecar
files) is wise.

Regards,
Jean-François
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

On 26/08/13 20:55, Elle Stone wrote:
> Does anyone on the list allow it to write to their raw files?
If it ever gains the ability I will immediately stop using it and delete
it from my disk! Just the thought of it ever touching the digital
negatives... Never ever!

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Elle Stone]

Hmm, well, thanks all!

I actually only do use sidecar files for all the reasons listed above,
for jpegs as well as raw files. But I was testing digiKam 3.4 in a
test database where I needed to write directly to the images. Writing
to the raw files didn't seem to work, though I kinda thought it
already did. So I was wondering whether anyone on the list might be
writing to their raw files. That "experimental" feature has been there
a long time.

Anyway, I do let exiftool write directly to my raw files, have done so
for years. But you all have given me reason to rethink even that. From
now on I'll also save a completely untouched original raw and write
only to a copy.

Elle

--
http://ninedegreesbelow.com - color management & open source photography
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Hi all,

Raw metadata writting support is operated by Exiv2 in background. All
format supported are managed by Exiv2, not digiKam. As i remember,
only few TIFF/EP based raw format are supported, as NEF for ex.

Considerate this feature as experimental. It's disabled by default in digiKam.

Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
image data.

Gilles Caulier


2013/8/27 Elle Stone <[hidden email]>:

> Hmm, well, thanks all!
>
> I actually only do use sidecar files for all the reasons listed above,
> for jpegs as well as raw files. But I was testing digiKam 3.4 in a
> test database where I needed to write directly to the images. Writing
> to the raw files didn't seem to work, though I kinda thought it
> already did. So I was wondering whether anyone on the list might be
> writing to their raw files. That "experimental" feature has been there
> a long time.
>
> Anyway, I do let exiftool write directly to my raw files, have done so
> for years. But you all have given me reason to rethink even that. From
> now on I'll also save a completely untouched original raw and write
> only to a copy.
>
> Elle
>
> --
> http://ninedegreesbelow.com - color management & open source photography
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

On 27/08/13 13:33, Gilles Caulier wrote:
> Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
> add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
> image data.
Consider XMP sidecar files as the only viable way of storing meta data
as writing to the RAW file or even the JPEG will create an backup
nightmare as instead of needing to backup one small file you then would
have to backup the full large image file!
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

Le 27/08/2013 13:33, Gilles Caulier a écrit :

> Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
> add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
> image data.


true, but sidecar files a not standars and so can't be used to
transfer metadata for example to online gallery

just to point about the "universal" adjective. Of course I wont ever
write to raw file, only to jpeg

jdd


--
http://www.dodin.org
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2013/8/27 jdd <[hidden email]>:

> Le 27/08/2013 13:33, Gilles Caulier a écrit :
>
>
>> Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
>> add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
>> image data.
>
>
>
> true, but sidecar files a not standars and so can't be used to transfer
> metadata for example to online gallery
>

It's completely wrong ! XMP is standardized by Adobe. But it's true
that 3rd party applications are not able to manage it properly. But's
it's another problem here...


> just to point about the "universal" adjective. Of course I wont ever write
> to raw file, only to jpeg

This is what i do too.

Typically, i shot RAW + JPEG in particular condition, where i know
that JPEG can be a failure in workflow.

...else JPEG is really enough to work in 90% of case, and it's enough.

I'm waiting that camera constructor use a replacement of JPEG
supporting 16 bits color depth instead 8 bits... or why not, improve
JPEG standard to support a better color depth. It's already the case
of JPEG used in medecine which support lossless compression and 12
bits color depth. Note that an higher color to JPEG is possible, as
DNG use it to store RAW data with 16 bits color depth...

Gilles Caulier

>
> jdd
>
>
> --
> http://www.dodin.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2013/8/27 Karl Günter Wünsch <[hidden email]>:
> On 27/08/13 13:33, Gilles Caulier wrote:
>> Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
>> add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
>> image data.
> Consider XMP sidecar files as the only viable way of storing meta data
> as writing to the RAW file or even the JPEG will create an backup
> nightmare as instead of needing to backup one small file you then would
> have to backup the full large image file!

Why it's a mess to backup image files + sidecar files at the same time
? both are stored in collection at the same place and use the same
file name prefix..

Personalty, i backup my whole collection to a NAS using rsync without
any problem. Restoring collection after a crash on host computer work
like a charm. XMp side car will be parsed to restore DB...

Gilles Caulier
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

On 27/08/13 15:36, Gilles Caulier wrote:

> 2013/8/27 Karl Günter Wünsch <[hidden email]>:
>> On 27/08/13 13:33, Gilles Caulier wrote:
>>> Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
>>> add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
>>> image data.
>> Consider XMP sidecar files as the only viable way of storing meta data
>> as writing to the RAW file or even the JPEG will create an backup
>> nightmare as instead of needing to backup one small file you then would
>> have to backup the full large image file!
>
> Why it's a mess to backup image files + sidecar files at the same time
> ? both are stored in collection at the same place and use the same
> file name prefix..

Nope, you read my comment wrong. It's a backup nightmare if the program
were to write to the RAW or JPEG file, the XMP sidecar is the only
viable solution that doesn't screw up the backup solution!

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

Le 27/08/2013 15:34, Gilles Caulier a écrit :

> I'm waiting that camera constructor use a replacement of JPEG
> supporting 16 bits color depth instead 8 bits...

then we need better screens :-))

and some time better eyes :-))

jdd


--
http://www.dodin.org
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2013/8/27 jdd <[hidden email]>:

> Le 27/08/2013 15:34, Gilles Caulier a écrit :
>
>
>> I'm waiting that camera constructor use a replacement of JPEG
>> supporting 16 bits color depth instead 8 bits...
>
>
> then we need better screens :-))
>
> and some time better eyes :-))

But RAW is already 12 or 14 bits...

The goal is not to improve rendering of colors on screen, but the
change/fix/improvements done on image by post processing. With 8 bits
color depth it's a source of data loss which will be less visible in
16 bits color depth...

Also, i don't talk about the capability of camera to capture a largest
spectrum of light, which will be stored in a better way with more
color depth.

Gilles Caulier

>
>
> jdd
>
>
> --
> http://www.dodin.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Le 27/08/2013 15:55, Gilles Caulier a écrit :

> But RAW is already 12 or 14 bits...

well... raw is not an image :-(

your 16 bits jpg is simply a standardised raw, witch is really needed

jdd


--
http://www.dodin.org
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

RAW is an image. It's a copy of internal sensor data not processed by
camera firmware.

It's not a suitable as well image as JPEG, but it's an image that need
post processing. In fact JPEG need also post processing to be show on
screen as decompression for ex.

Sure, RAW require more post computing, but it's an image. Read
wikipedia page for details :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

Gilles Caulier

2013/8/27 jdd <[hidden email]>:

> Le 27/08/2013 15:55, Gilles Caulier a écrit :
>
>
>> But RAW is already 12 or 14 bits...
>
>
> well... raw is not an image :-(
>
> your 16 bits jpg is simply a standardised raw, witch is really needed
>
>
> jdd
>
>
> --
> http://www.dodin.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Le 27/08/2013 16:17, Gilles Caulier a écrit :
> RAW is an image. It's a copy of internal sensor data not processed by
> camera firmware.

it's an image as long as you think an undevelopped exposed film is an
image...

by the way it's an other discussion I should not have started, sorry,
my fault

jdd


--
http://www.dodin.org
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Remco Viëtor]

On Tuesday 27 August 2013 16:01:35 jdd wrote:
> Le 27/08/2013 15:55, Gilles Caulier a écrit :
>
> > But RAW is already 12 or 14 bits...
>
> well... raw is not an image :-(
>
> your 16 bits jpg is simply a standardised raw, witch is really needed
Not quite, as jpeg usually uses a /lossy/ compression, which can induce
visible artifacts (especially at high contrast edges, see the effect jpeg
compression has on text or line drawings).

And 12 bits is enough for most sensors afaik, and packs nicely (2 pixels in
3 bytes, easy to encode/decode); so 16 bits is a bit of overkill, and would
slow down writing to the memory card.

But yes, a really standard and open RAW format would be nice.

Remco
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2013/8/27 Remco Viëtor <[hidden email]>:

> On Tuesday 27 August 2013 16:01:35 jdd wrote:
>> Le 27/08/2013 15:55, Gilles Caulier a écrit :
>>
>> > But RAW is already 12 or 14 bits...
>>
>> well... raw is not an image :-(
>>
>> your 16 bits jpg is simply a standardised raw, witch is really needed
> Not quite, as jpeg usually uses a /lossy/ compression, which can induce
> visible artifacts (especially at high contrast edges, see the effect jpeg
> compression has on text or line drawings).
>
> And 12 bits is enough for most sensors afaik, and packs nicely (2 pixels in
> 3 bytes, easy to encode/decode); so 16 bits is a bit of overkill, and would
> slow down writing to the memory card.

Not really. As RAW as 12/14 bits depth, it's already the case. I'm
sure that data are encode with 2 byte instead 1 for one color
components by pixel.

Gilles Caulier
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[hajo]

On 27 Aug 2013, at 22:48, "Karl Günter Wünsch" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 27/08/13 15:36, Gilles Caulier wrote:
>> 2013/8/27 Karl Günter Wünsch <[hidden email]>:
>>> On 27/08/13 13:33, Gilles Caulier wrote:
>>>> Considerate XMP sidecar as the best universal alternative. Sure it's
>>>> add new file in your collection, but size are negligible compared to
>>>> image data.
>>> Consider XMP sidecar files as the only viable way of storing meta data
>>> as writing to the RAW file or even the JPEG will create an backup
>>> nightmare as instead of needing to backup one small file you then would
>>> have to backup the full large image file!
>>
>> Why it's a mess to backup image files + sidecar files at the same time
>> ? both are stored in collection at the same place and use the same
>> file name prefix..
> Nope, you read my comment wrong. It's a backup nightmare if the program
> were to write to the RAW or JPEG file, the XMP sidecar is the only
> viable solution that doesn't screw up the backup solution!
>

I don't understand this argument at all. Every better backup solution handles diffs automatically and usually a backup contains a lot of other files that get altered. Spreadsheets, text documents, source code files, binaries, you name it. Are they all a nightmare as well? Hell, you could even run a version control system on your images if you wished so...

Out of practical experience, I use sidecars for RAW but write metadata to JPEGs for easier export handling. And my backup runs flawless...
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users