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

[Elle Stone]

Oz,

Thanks! for the tip about Adobe's dng converter - I didn't realize it
would run under wine. I might just give it a try.

Elle

On 1/8/11, Ozzy <ozzyprv at gmail.com> wrote:
> Elle,
>
> 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).
>
> Cheers.
>
> Oz.
>
>
> 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
>>
>