[Digikam-users] How do you generate good quality jpegs from raws quickly, automatically ?
kde at fahrendorf.de
Wed Dec 23 20:31:28 GMT 2009
Am Mittwoch, 23. Dezember 2009 schrieb Linuxguy123:
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 20:56 +0100, Martin (KDE) wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 23. Dezember 2009 schrieb Linuxguy123:
> > > So how do you convert your raws to jpgs automatically and get a
> > > good result, ie something close to the preview jpg ? I would
> > > prefer to use the tools in digiKam but will consider using
> > > outside tools and eventually write a plugin to use them in
> > > digiKam.
> > I usually use UFRaw to set exposure, white balance etc. and safe
> > it as ID file only (ID file contains settings only and is much
> > faster to save than a jpeg or png). After that is done, I run
> > ufraw-batch with the ID files (which can take very long).
> That is what I used to do and what gives me the best result. As
> long as the shooting situation doesn't change much the same ID
> file will give a good result across a large number of images.
> As far as I know, ufraw is the only converter that allows one to do
> this sort of thing.
> Did you know that one can extract the icc file from the raw file
> using Exiftool ? http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
I heard something about that, but I didn't get it working.
> > I have created a curve which matches (almost) the EOS30D one. I
> > use the EOS standard icc profile with gamma set to 0.45 and
> > linearity to 0.1. Additionally I set saturation to 1.1 and
> > enabled auto black-point adjustment.
> Very interesting.
> > Most raw files looks pretty good with this settings. If many
> > pictures can be developed the same way, you can use one ID file
> > for many raw pictures. But I take the extra time to set some
> > values for every picture.
> Right. But shouldn't the raw file theoretically have all the
> information that a raw converter needs to do a really good job of
> converting the image, at least to something that matches the
> embedded jpg ?
In theory yes, but most manufacturers hides essential settings in
their software (camera and PC). So if you use alternative software you
have to do it of your own step by step.
> > My results mostly looks better than the embedded jpegs. Color is
> > a little less intensive but I think more accurate.
More information about the Digikam-users