[Digikam-users] Re: using extracted jpeg as "sidecar" for raw files

Ozzy ozzyprv at gmail.com
Sun Jan 9 03:41:21 CET 2011


Thanks for this great information on DNG files/format. Definitely it is food
for thoughts!

You are right about digiKam's DNG converter, I experienced the same problem.
I added an extra step to my workflow by using Adobe DNG converter (runs fine
under WINE).



On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Elle Stone <l.elle.stone at gmail.com> wrote:

> Milan, thank you, you've provided food for thought. I've used software
> that generates xmp files, but they are very faceless little files and
> I end up deleting them. I like what you said about the jpeg
> side-car/negative being a record of the actual image.
> Oz, in theory dng sounds great. But in practice, I'm not confident
> that I can get my original Canon raw file out of the dng in one piece.
> Also, I tried the digikam dng conversion on a sample raw file and the
> resulting "dng-raw" colors came out drastically altered. I use "uniwb"
> (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm;
> http://www.malch.com/nikon/UniWB.html) custom color setting in my
> camera, so all my raw file thumbnails look (and should look) green.
> The digikam dng conversion turned everything magenta and my efforts to
> rebalance the dng to realistic colors didn't work so well, whereas
> balancing from green to normal colors with dcraw or ufraw is
> straightforward.
> Also, I use a custom camera profile generated with argyllcms, and dng
> is oriented toward using adobe-supplied camera matrices/profiles.
> Also, I've read the dng specs (tried to) and I just don't see how dng
> makes a closed-source raw file any more open source than dcraw already
> does.
> On the other hand, if/when I ever purchase a new camera,
> in-camera-produced dngs would be a selling point, because then the dng
> would be the whole thing, not a funny wrapper around a proprietary raw
> file.
> Elle
> On 1/8/11, Ozzy <ozzyprv at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Milan, I like this comment a lot:
> >
> > ".. at the end, I would like to have some final "photos" of all of my
> > "negatives", whose
> > quality (colour, whatever else) is not dependent on the version of raw
> > convertor used "
> >
> > Never thought of the jpg's that way.
> >
> > Elle, just out of curiosity. What do you have against DNG? The way I see
> > DNG's is as a secure way to store your negatives. I use Canon, so if one
> day
> > Canon decides to stop supporting cr2 format I already have my negatives
> in
> > an open-source digital negative format.
> >
> > Good conversation!
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20110108/7ea84f40/attachment.htm 

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list