[Digikam-users] Re: Processing RAW images to get to the look of the jpg preview

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011 schrieb Sven Burmeister:
> Hey everybody!
> 
> I have a Panasonic LX3 and shoot RAW pictures. Compared to the jpg
> preview the RAWs are always darker, no matter whether I pick 8 or
> 16bit for demosaicing.
> 
> I do see that "dark" has the advantage of showing more details
> (e.g. on the pink flower bits), especially in bright areas but I
> would like to be able to get to almost the same picture from the
> RAW as the jpg preview shows.
> 
> So I'd like to know what others do for processing their RAW
> pictures and whether the darker is better or inevitable in your
> opinion or whether I'm doing something wrong.
> 
> I have added a few pictures to a flickr album. The jpg is the
> embedded preview and the -raw is the demosaiced RAW picture with
> no post-processing but only resized.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/34017986@N05/sets/72157626996362812/
> 
> For me enhance > local contrast works quite well to get closer to
> the preview but has side effects, especially for highlights. Using
> other methods than "solid white" while demosaicing makes the
> picture even darker. So e.g. getting the wall of the building as
> bright as in the preview makes the clouds look bad because they do
> not blend. Also very good visible in the DSC_xyz crops. The jpg is
> brighter but does still blend the highlights better than if I take
> the -raw and apply local contrast or any other tool to get the
> picture brighter.
> 
> Also, colours > levels adjust or auto-correction (auto-exposure) do
> work towards the preview but don't get there. Especially the sky
> does not get that bright blue from the preview.
> 
> I also tried white-balance (sun) but that makes the picture a bit
> too blue.
> 
> Colours > Hue/Saturation/Lightness also helps regarding vibrance
> and saturation.
> 
> So what do you do with your pictures? Do you also see that "always
> darker"?

If I use auto exposure I always (almost) get darker images. This is 
due to avoid clipping highlighted areas. If you clip those areas you 
will never get the information back afterwards (like structures in 
clouds). This becomes a problem if there are over exposed areas in the 
picture without any interest for the picture itself (background clouds 
or foreground while using a flash). This is nothing the automatic 
exposure handling can do about.

For raw processing I use a specialist in this area (ufraw in the past, 
darktable since about a half a year). These programs have much more 
options to get a pleasing photo. All the other stuff (organizing and 
tagging) I do with digikam.

Another advantage: both programs stores the settings for the raw file 
in an extra file. So if you have to readjust the white balance it is 
much easier than redo all settings with digikam. (This may be true for 
digikam 1.x only as I don't know digikam 2.x). And at least darktable 
has many options to get maximum out of your raw file and by default 
produces results similar to the buildin jpeg.

Martin

> 
> Sven
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users