[Digikam-users] dynamic range problem

[mfi]

Hello,



Gilles Caulier pisze:
> Michael,
>
> I cannot reproduce the problem here.
>
> I have tested to import your RAW file using digiKam for KDE4 
> (0.10.0-beta4) or digiKam for KDE3 (0.9.5-svn) using new RAWImport 
> tool for image editor, and all work fine with highlight recovery settings.
>
> For RAW file decoding, i use libkdcraw based on LibRaw 
> (http://www.libraw.org). LibRaw currently use the last dcraw code for 
> demosaicing. Now look my screenshots:
>
> * This the preview of raw import tool with RAW demosaicing settings. 
> Postprocessing use default settings (no gamma/curve/exposure 
> adjustment) . Of course like it's a preview with a divided by 4 image 
> size, huge zooming give artifact. But it's enough to set demosaicing 
> configuration. Also, working on a reduced raw decoded image speedup 
> computation. Note that i use 16 bits color depth, not 8 (it's a non 
> sence to use 8 bits color depth with RAW)
>
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/Screenshots/temp/rawimport/pef-rawimport-preview.png


Is that possible in version 9.4 ? I am not familiar with svn and there's 
no KDE 4 for gentoo at this moment. I can't see Raw Import Tab in my 
digikam and I don't have options that You have below histogram. If this 
is just version related problem I can wait a bit for a more current 
release for my distro. I tried sharpening tool for digikam and now I 
just don't want to use other program ;)

>
> And now, the best: the full raw image in editor. Look like the color 
> (white balance) is better than RAW studio !
>
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/Screenshots/temp/rawimport/pef-editor.png
>
> For me, it's a good example how to use properly RAW files in digiKam.
The white balance in RawStudio is messed up, but it's my fault - I set 
it up manually,  just to show the problem with highlights.

>
> Note : the preview from digiKam  icon view is rendered using JPEG 
> preview image from RAW file. It's not RAW image data decoded. In fact 
> the preview  JPEG  is adjusted using camera  firmware. It's still JPEG 
> : only 8 bits color depth ! this is why highlight are broken, and it's 
> a good example to explain why RAW is always better than JPEG.

But highlights are broken after RAW decoding as far as I understand... 
Preview (didn't know RAW contains jpg previevs, thanks) is rendered 
correctly and highlights aren't broken there... Did I miss something ?
>
> Unforget : jpeg is fine to take shot and publish as well the image on 
> the web (fats workflow). Never use JPEG if you want to retouch photo, 
> especially color settings ! This file format is not adapted and use 
> lossy compression algorithm.

Thanks - that's why I use RAW instead of JPG ;)
>
> Best
>
> Gilles Caulier


Best Regards
Michael Fidler