How to best save images

[Dr. Martin Senftleben]

After the discussion about quality loss etc. with different file
formats, I would like some recommendation.
In order to save space on the camera card, it would be best to use
only jpg format, but it's not the highest quality. So I'd rather use
the raw format (I just got a Canon EOS 7D) to take pictures, even
though that takes more space on the card (then I buy a few more),
because I tend to forget to press the raw button on the camera when a
valuable picture is taken.
When I download the images, I could let digikam transfer the images
into the png format. Would that be ok, i.e. without any loss? Or would
it still be better to keep both the raw image and the png image?
Or would it be ok to take pictures as jpg and on download transfer
them to the png format? Would the results be the same?

Thanks for any comments. If there is something to read up about it,
I'd be glad to be pointed to it.

Martin
--
E-Mail digital signiert mit Hilfe von GPG -
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

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

[Andrew Goodbody]

Martin Senftleben wrote:
> When I download the images, I could let digikam transfer the images
> into the png format. Would that be ok, i.e. without any loss? Or would
> it still be better to keep both the raw image and the png image?

Converting from raw to anything you will lose data. Converting from raw
includes various processes such as de-mosaicing and applying white balance.

> Or would it be ok to take pictures as jpg and on download transfer
> them to the png format? Would the results be the same?

You get two stages of loss just getting to the jpg image so no, the
results would not be the same. First you have the raw conversion as
above and then the jpg file itself is a lossy compression.

Storage is cheap, data is irreplaceable. However you must choose where
your priorities are.

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Martin Senftleben:

> After the discussion about quality loss etc. with different file
> formats, I would like some recommendation.
> In order to save space on the camera card, it would be best to use
> only jpg format, but it's not the highest quality. So I'd rather
>  use the raw format (I just got a Canon EOS 7D) to take pictures,
>  even though that takes more space on the card (then I buy a few
>  more), because I tend to forget to press the raw button on the
>  camera when a valuable picture is taken.
> When I download the images, I could let digikam transfer the images
> into the png format. Would that be ok, i.e. without any loss? Or
>  would it still be better to keep both the raw image and the png
>  image? Or would it be ok to take pictures as jpg and on download
>  transfer them to the png format? Would the results be the same?

Currently I shoot photos raw and midlle quality jpeg and copy these
files to my harddisk with digikam. Usually I don't touch jpeg files
any more. They are for a quick overview only. For digikam this is not
necessary but for normal file managers and gwenview it is best
handling. If I have to touch any photo, I use the raw one and I must
confess: I open them with gimp but usually from digikam.

If I have a series of photos to work on I use UFRaw to make the basic
settings and store my settings in ID files. Newest UFRaw can store
fine rotation and clipping too. With UFRaw's batch handling I can
convert the raw photos automatically (with the previously saved
individual settings).

So for me raw data are the core. And I dream of a program which stores
all the steps I do on the photo as command in a config file. So I can
change some parameter in between without doing all the stuff once
again.

At the end of my processing I mostly have jpegs. But I mostly can
replay it automatically from raw.

If you don't want to handle raw data (the 7D raw data are huge and
take a lot of time to process) it seems to be best to convert jpeg to
png. I tried it once, but it is way to slow for my hardware. I never
tried the new format.

>
> Thanks for any comments. If there is something to read up about it,
> I'd be glad to be pointed to it.
>
> Martin
>

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

[Micha? Smoczyk]

Martin (KDE) wrote:

> Currently I shoot photos raw and midlle quality jpeg and copy these
> files to my harddisk with digikam. Usually I don't touch jpeg files
> any more. They are for a quick overview only. For digikam this is not
> necessary but for normal file managers and gwenview it is best
> handling.

That is generally the way I do, because of metadata - tagging is the
key for me. digiKam (and exiv2) can't write metadata to Canon RAW
files (CR2) which I use and I don't think this situation will change
in close future. I save CR2 files in subdirectory untagged, convert
them to PNG (loseless) which I tag.

> So for me raw data are the core. And I dream of a program which stores
> all the steps I do on the photo as command in a config file. So I can
> change some parameter in between without doing all the stuff once
> again.

Me too. Regards,

--
/\/\ichau, admin [malpka] nocnyrzepin [kropa] net
http://www.nocnyrzepin.net


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

Le 24/01/2010 11:28, Andrew Goodbody a écrit :

> Converting from raw to anything you will lose data. Converting from raw
> includes various processes such as de-mosaicing and applying white balance.

> Storage is cheap, data is irreplaceable. However you must choose where
> your priorities are.

not so cheap and don't underestimate the time and work necessary to
scan all a collection, finding the various repositories...

For various reason (unrelevant here), I have to shoot many images. 500
for one evening is common. Most of these are unusefull and are very
soon deleted. On the rest most are for family fun and don't need any
real quality. Some only mat once have to be edited with max quality.

I don't have yet a real solution. When I had an OES 350D, I only used
jpeg fine. Now with my new EOS 50D,I can have raw+jpeg.

But it's an enormous amount of data. Simply copying it from the camera
to the computer takes ages

What I would like is a centralized file management: for example be
able to remove both raw and jpeg on one action (now I have to scan
file names).

however I have to say when I bough my 50D, digikam couldn't open the
raw files, this stopped me a lot and I have to rethink things

jdd

--
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://news.opensuse.org/2009/04/13/people-of-opensuse-jean-daniel-dodin/
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Micha? Smoczyk:

> Martin (KDE) wrote:
> > Currently I shoot photos raw and midlle quality jpeg and copy
> > these files to my harddisk with digikam. Usually I don't touch
> > jpeg files any more. They are for a quick overview only. For
> > digikam this is not necessary but for normal file managers and
> > gwenview it is best handling.
>
> That is generally the way I do, because of metadata - tagging is
>  the key for me. digiKam (and exiv2) can't write metadata to Canon
>  RAW files (CR2) which I use and I don't think this situation will
>  change in close future. I save CR2 files in subdirectory untagged,
>  convert them to PNG (loseless) which I tag.

Hm, may be, in case of raw, it is possible to save the meta data not
only in the internal digikam database, but in an extra exif file as
well. Just my thoughts

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

[Daniel Bauer-2]

On Sunday 24 January 2010 12:12:43, jdd wrote:

> Le 24/01/2010 11:28, Andrew Goodbody a écrit :
> > Converting from raw to anything you will lose data. Converting from raw
> > includes various processes such as de-mosaicing and applying white
> > balance.
> >
> > Storage is cheap, data is irreplaceable. However you must choose where
> > your priorities are.
>
> not so cheap and don't underestimate the time and work necessary to
> scan all a collection, finding the various repositories...

If you want good photos you will have to apply some time on them...
>
> For various reason (unrelevant here), I have to shoot many images. 500
> for one evening is common. Most of these are unusefull and are very
> soon deleted. On the rest most are for family fun and don't need any
> real quality. Some only mat once have to be edited with max quality.
>
> I don't have yet a real solution. When I had an OES 350D, I only used
> jpeg fine. Now with my new EOS 50D,I can have raw+jpeg.

I shoot raw+small jpg. I copy all on computer in a folder away from digiKam.
Copy all raws on external hard drive plus dvd. (opinion what is a "good"
picture may change in time and then it's nice to still have all raw files...)

I import small jpgs to digikam and do the selection (which pictures to edit).
Delete the rest of the small jpgs. Move the corresponding raws to my
Virtualbox shared folder.

I must confess: I use Canons Software (on Win XP in Virtualbox) to "decode"
the raws. Although I really dislike Win, the Canon Software is very good and
easy to use. I put the setting for all the images, save those settings (it
will not alter the raw files) and then let them convert in a batch process.

Finally copy the processed files back to the shared folder, convert them to
png and import those into digikam. This is where I do cropping etc. and give
them the final color aspects.

Finally I do retouching on the pngs in Gimp and then convert them to jpgs.

>
> But it's an enormous amount of data. Simply copying it from the camera
> to the computer takes ages

This is true. But I have a negative/slides archives that takes much more space
(and costs) than some external hard drives and dvds.
>
> What I would like is a centralized file management: for example be
> able to remove both raw and jpeg on one action (now I have to scan
> file names).

I leave the original file-name intact thru all the steps. So I can use find to
scan an album and create a list. Then I edit this list to the according wishes
(move/delete/copy etc.) and let run this list as a shell script.

> however I have to say when I bough my 50D, digikam couldn't open the
> raw files, this stopped me a lot and I have to rethink things

Never stop thinking, the world is changing all tme time :-)

Daniel
--
Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
professional photography: http://www.daniel-bauer.com
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Andrew Goodbody]

jdd wrote:
> But it's an enormous amount of data. Simply copying it from the camera
> to the computer takes ages

It doesn't have to. I use an EOS 40D with 4GB CF cards. I remove the CF
card from the camera and download the data using a CF adapter using drag
'n drop in Explorer. I have two adapters, one will take ages to transfer
the data, say 30 mins or more, while the other is much faster, less than
4 mins for 4GB.

> What I would like is a centralized file management: for example be
> able to remove both raw and jpeg on one action (now I have to scan
> file names).

Yes that would be good.

Andrew

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Daniel Bauer:

> On Sunday 24 January 2010 12:12:43, jdd wrote:
> > Le 24/01/2010 11:28, Andrew Goodbody a écrit :
> > > Converting from raw to anything you will lose data. Converting
> > > from raw includes various processes such as de-mosaicing and
> > > applying white balance.
> > >
> > > Storage is cheap, data is irreplaceable. However you must
> > > choose where your priorities are.
> >
> > not so cheap and don't underestimate the time and work necessary
> > to scan all a collection, finding the various repositories...
>
> If you want good photos you will have to apply some time on them...
>
> > For various reason (unrelevant here), I have to shoot many
> > images. 500 for one evening is common. Most of these are
> > unusefull and are very soon deleted. On the rest most are for
> > family fun and don't need any real quality. Some only mat once
> > have to be edited with max quality.
> >
> > I don't have yet a real solution. When I had an OES 350D, I only
> > used jpeg fine. Now with my new EOS 50D,I can have raw+jpeg.
>
> I shoot raw+small jpg. I copy all on computer in a folder away from
>  digiKam. Copy all raws on external hard drive plus dvd. (opinion
>  what is a "good" picture may change in time and then it's nice to
>  still have all raw files...)
>
> I import small jpgs to digikam and do the selection (which pictures
>  to edit). Delete the rest of the small jpgs. Move the
>  corresponding raws to my Virtualbox shared folder.
>
> I must confess: I use Canons Software (on Win XP in Virtualbox) to
>  "decode" the raws. Although I really dislike Win, the Canon
>  Software is very good and easy to use. I put the setting for all
>  the images, save those settings (it will not alter the raw files)
>  and then let them convert in a batch process.
>
> Finally copy the processed files back to the shared folder, convert
>  them to png and import those into digikam. This is where I do
>  cropping etc. and give them the final color aspects.

Yes, Canon software is not that bad. But there are steps (like rotate
2° left and clip, which canon software is not able to do (at least my
version is not). And I don't like the close source way.

In my point of view current version of UFRaw is equal to or even
better than canon software (for my EOS 30D files). I use colormatix as
profile and for some photos a nonlinear base curve. And newest UFRaw
can even correct lens flaws (but my lenses are not that bad).

In the last months I played a lot with IT8 targets to create my own
camera profile to get colours as correct as possible. While I have
some progress with this, I am not completely satisfied with the
result.

>
> Finally I do retouching on the pngs in Gimp and then convert them
>  to jpgs.

Yep, that's my way, too except I don't use pngs.

>
> > But it's an enormous amount of data. Simply copying it from the
> > camera to the computer takes ages
>
> This is true. But I have a negative/slides archives that takes much
>  more space (and costs) than some external hard drives and dvds.
>
> > What I would like is a centralized file management: for example
> > be able to remove both raw and jpeg on one action (now I have to
> > scan file names).
>
> I leave the original file-name intact thru all the steps. So I can
>  use find to scan an album and create a list. Then I edit this list
>  to the according wishes (move/delete/copy etc.) and let run this
>  list as a shell script.

I have raw and non raw files side by side. In digikam I can select
which one i want to see and so finding my photos is much easier. Once
I had raws in seperate directories but this was to confusing.

>
> > however I have to say when I bough my 50D, digikam couldn't open
> > the raw files, this stopped me a lot and I have to rethink things
>
> Never stop thinking, the world is changing all tme time :-)
>
> Daniel
>

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

[Micha? Smoczyk]

Martin (KDE) wrote:

>> That is generally the way I do, because of metadata - tagging is
>>  the key for me. digiKam (and exiv2) can't write metadata to Canon
>>  RAW files (CR2) which I use and I don't think this situation will
>>  change in close future. I save CR2 files in subdirectory untagged,
>>  convert them to PNG (loseless) which I tag.

> Hm, may be, in case of raw, it is possible to save the meta data not
> only in the internal digikam database, but in an extra exif file as
> well. Just my thoughts

As far as I know, digiKam don't recognize these kind of metadata
files automatically -- I mean I can save separately exiv / xmp /
iptc text file for given photo but it does not mean I can edit
metadata or load into or join with digiKam database in case of
corruption or something. I think this function is for archiving
purpose, and I have never used it.

It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo, waste of
time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,

--
/\/\ichau, admin [malpka] nocnyrzepin [kropa] net
http://www.nocnyrzepin.net


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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Micha? Smoczyk:

> Martin (KDE) wrote:
> >> That is generally the way I do, because of metadata - tagging is
> >>  the key for me. digiKam (and exiv2) can't write metadata to
> >> Canon RAW files (CR2) which I use and I don't think this
> >> situation will change in close future. I save CR2 files in
> >> subdirectory untagged, convert them to PNG (loseless) which I
> >> tag.
> >
> > Hm, may be, in case of raw, it is possible to save the meta data
> > not only in the internal digikam database, but in an extra exif
> > file as well. Just my thoughts
>
> As far as I know, digiKam don't recognize these kind of metadata
> files automatically -- I mean I can save separately exiv / xmp /
> iptc text file for given photo but it does not mean I can edit
> metadata or load into or join with digiKam database in case of
> corruption or something. I think this function is for archiving
> purpose, and I have never used it.
>
> It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo, waste of
> time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,

No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
(experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to extra
file".

>

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

[Milan Knížek]

Martin (KDE) píše v Ne 24. 01. 2010 v 13:54 +0100:
> Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Micha? Smoczyk:
> > It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo, waste of
> > time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,
>
> No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
> additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
> (experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to extra
> file".

Sounds like a new feature since 1.0.0, I should go compiling again ;-)

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

[Micha? Smoczyk]

Milan Knížek wrote:

> Martin (KDE) píše v Ne 24. 01. 2010 v 13:54 +0100:
>> Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Michal Smoczyk:
>>> It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo, waste of
>>> time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,
>> No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
>> additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
>> (experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to extra
>> file".
>
> Sounds like a new feature since 1.0.0, I should go compiling again ;-)

I don't see this option in 1.0.0 neither.

--
/\/\ichau, admin [malpka] nocnyrzepin [kropa] net
http://www.nocnyrzepin.net


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

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2010/1/25 Michał Smoczyk <[hidden email]>:

> Milan Knížek wrote:
>
>> Martin (KDE) píše v Ne 24. 01. 2010 v 13:54 +0100:
>>> Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Michal Smoczyk:
>>>> It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo, waste of
>>>> time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,
>>> No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
>>> additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
>>> (experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to extra
>>> file".
>>
>> Sounds like a new feature since 1.0.0, I should go compiling again ;-)
>
> I don't see this option in 1.0.0 neither.

This depand of libkexiv2/Exiv2 used. Libkexiv2 come from KDEgraphics (kde core).

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Montag, 25. Januar 2010 schrieb Milan Knížek:

> Martin (KDE) píše v Ne 24. 01. 2010 v 13:54 +0100:
> > Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Micha? Smoczyk:
> > > It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo,
> > > waste of time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,
> >
> > No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
> > additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
> > (experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to
> > extra file".
>
> Sounds like a new feature since 1.0.0, I should go compiling again
>  ;-)

NoNoNo, you got me wrong: This was a wish not an existing feature.
Somewhere in the net I read about a similar function. Should I open a
feature request about this?

Martin

>
> 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

[Milan Knížek]

Martin (KDE) píše v Po 25. 01. 2010 v 17:18 +0100:

> > > No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
> > > additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
> > > (experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to
> > > extra file".
> >
> > Sounds like a new feature since 1.0.0, I should go compiling again
> >  ;-)
>
> NoNoNo, you got me wrong: This was a wish not an existing feature.
> Somewhere in the net I read about a similar function. Should I open a
> feature request about this?
>

What a pity, you made me sad again...

Saving metadata to side-car file when it is not possible to save
directly to the image file, it would be really great.

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Montag, 25. Januar 2010 schrieb Martin (KDE):

> Am Montag, 25. Januar 2010 schrieb Milan Knížek:
> > Martin (KDE) píše v Ne 24. 01. 2010 v 13:54 +0100:
> > > Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 schrieb Micha? Smoczyk:
> > > > It means also 3 extra files manually saved for each photo,
> > > > waste of time for my thousands of pictures. Cheers,
> > >
> > > No, not doing it manually, but automatically by digikam. As a
> > > additional feature, same as the setting: "save metadata to raw
> > > (experimental)" you can chose "save metadata for raw files to
> > > extra file".
> >
> > Sounds like a new feature since 1.0.0, I should go compiling
> > again ;-)
>
> NoNoNo, you got me wrong: This was a wish not an existing feature.
> Somewhere in the net I read about a similar function. Should I open
>  a feature request about this?

Just for completeness: I filed a wish (Bug 224784) at bko.

Martin

>
> Martin
>
> > 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