[Digikam-users] How does digiKam do raw conversions for the slide shows ?

[Mark Greenwood]

On Wednesday 23 Dec 2009 17:14:29 Gilles Caulier wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Mark Greenwood <fatgerman at ntlworld.com>:
> > On Wednesday 23 Dec 2009 16:59:45 Linuxguy123 wrote:
> >> I shot 600 raw images at a wedding this past weekend.
> >>
> >> I downloaded them into digiKam, tagged ~ 200 of the best and ran them in
> >> the digiKam slide show for the gift opening the next day.  They looked
> >> awesome.  Everyone was very pleased.
> >>
> >> Yesterday I tried converting some of the same raw files to jpgs using
> >> the tools in digiKam.  They didn't come out nearly as nice, due to
> >> issues with white balance settings, exposure, etc.
> >>
> >> How does digiKam generate the images for the raw files it displays in
> >> the slide shows ?   How could I easily generate jpegs that look as good
> >> as the images in the slideshow ?
> >>
> >
> > I would assume that for the slideshow Digikam is using the embedded JPEG data from the RAW file and not the RAW data. You can extract the embedded JPEG using exiftool (though I forget how, try googling it) but that really defeats the object of using RAW. When you use RAW you are expected to do all the white balance etc adjustments yourself. The embedded JPEG has the camera's built-in adjustments already applied. If you're going to use the embedded JPEG you may as well just shoot JPEG in the first place.
> 
> Yes, it use JPEG preview. Fast and usefull...
> 
> >
> > There's no "easy" way to get good results from RAW, you need to put in the effort to 'develop' each shot yourself. With practice you'll soon be getting *better* results than the images in the slideshow.
> 
> and it's long to decode.
> 
> >
> > However, all that said, I've found that the tools in Digikam sometimes don't cope very well with RAW files - you need accurate icc colour profiles for your camera, for one thing. Most people seem to like ufraw for RAW processing, and it does seem to give more "accurate" results than Digikam does.
> >
> 
> I don't use ICC and i always shot in RAW (minolta). Results are fine
> with a some adjustement (saturation). I use auto gamma and 16 bits
> color depth of course.
> 

You have just filled in the missing piece of the puzzle for me I think... so I don't need an icc profile for my camera even if I use RAW? The RAW import tool somehow knows how to interpret the colour information? If that is the case then I think I now understand why I can't seem to get the results I expect when I'm using colour management. I think I actually don't need it at all.

Mark

> I never use UFRAW : too complicated for me... and GTK (:=)))
> 
> Gilles Caulier
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>