[Digikam-users] converting Pentax RAW problem
sebastian_kraft at gmx.de
Fri Jun 8 16:56:36 BST 2007
It is difficult to argue about that, but the preview image from
digikam/camera looks just like the scene was in reality. The converted RAW
file has wrong colors. Other RAW converters like Bibble do it right.
There is definitely something wrong with digikam.
Perhaps your right and I have done something wrong while conversion, but I
tried several hours and read a lot about that and couldn't get a result
that is acceptable.
The problem with color is with every picture, but mostly it is hard to see.
This picture with the wood and the water extremly shows the problem. I have
used digikam for months and created a lot of good looking pictures with it
using the same procedure as with the picture we are talking about here. So
I think I'm not doing it completely wrong...
> Sorry, I cannot agree. Your preview image is a bit to dark, it lacks
> details in the mirroring water surface. Colors are not vivid. Be
> reminded, that the preview image was produced by your camera, not Digikam.
> Also consider, that the edited version I uploaded was produced quickly
> from a Jpeg, which is only 8bit. You can expect better results
> (especially more details in the dark parts) from your raw image. Try it
> with L/C/G filter. Digikam brings all filters needed to produce good
> results from raw images, if you know what you're doing.
> Sebastian Kraft wrote:
>> Martin Schmettow wrote:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>> when you load a raw image directly with the editor the gamma is not set,
>>> meaning that the original linear curve of the cameras sensor is used.
>>> You can either shape the lightness correction curve to a convex form
>>> (last tab in the CM dialog). Or, which is easier, use the
>>> Lightness/Contrast/Gamma filter afterwards and set the gamma to a value
>>> usually between 1.8 and 2.2. You may have to enhance the contrast
>>> afterwards. Find your raw image with gamma=2.2 and contrast=80 here:
>> Ok... I know... I can adjust gamma, contrast.. but the result is far from
>> This is how the simple preview JPEG looks like:
>> And even this is ways better than anything digikam gives me.
>> there must be some other way?
>> Digikam-users mailing list
>> Digikam-users at kde.org
More information about the Digikam-users