[Digikam-users] Questions on RAW conversion: Base curve
mnaugendre at gmail.com
Wed Sep 11 13:35:18 BST 2013
2013/9/11 Jean-François Rabasse <jf at e-artefact.eu>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:
> I don't know how it does it, but each time I've needed a "quick" JPEG
>> without actually "working" from the RAW, the BQM has given me a pretty
>> result that I didn't need to modify afterwards.
>> For me, one more reason to never use RAW+JPEG as Digikam can do the job
>> well and in an instant. :-)
> Marie-Noëlle, would you please explain a bit your rationale ?
> I'm not sure to understand.
I always shoot in RAW, as I want to be in complete control of the rendering
my pictures. But I keep quite many pictures that I don't treat, at least
In some cases, say I need a picture of something I'm going to sell on eBay,
or if I want to 'illustrate' something that has nothing to do with
photography as itself, I find it very easy to pick up any picture from my
base; if it still is in RAW format, Digikam allows me to resize (for
publication) and convert it to JPEG in one go and less time than I need it
to explain. ;-)
And the resulting JPEG is perfectly good enough for this 'instant' need.
> But why do you say « one more reason to never use RAW+JPEG », as it
> seems to me that keeping the out-of-camera JPEG is certainly the fastest
> way to get quick (and excellent) JPEG.
I'm not interested in quick/excellent/automated JPEGs. If the pictures are
for my portolio, a show, or even for a customer, I always start working
from a RAW.
RAW+JPEG takes more room on memory cards, more time to be recorded, and I
would have to 'struggle' with twice more pictures to sort/organize on my
> PS: also, as Wolfgang wrote earlier, cf.
> The motivation of this post is my concern, that if I opt for shooting RAW
>> only, I will not be able to get the "correct" jpg, in the sense the camera
>> would have done it.
> keeping original camera JPEG can never harm, in case one needs a help
> or reference image, « correct » JPEG.
I don't know what a 'correct JPEG' is. On my camera - probably on yours too
- there are several pictures styles I can choose from, each of them can be
customized with 3 o 4 different parameters, that can have at least 5
different values!, the result also depends of your instant choice about
white balance, light enhancement, noise reduction, and whatever else.
When I'm on a shooting, I concentrate - and have enough to do! - on two
- my subject and how I want to 'capture' it: composition, focal choice,
- the way I want the camera to record it: mainly aperture/speed/ISO, and I
do it in a manner that lefts me as many options as possible for 'after'.
The rest will have to wait for the post-treatment time: I have no interest
in finding what would be the best parameters for the camera to produce a
beautiful JPEG. It's completely lost time - and action - for me; and when
'the light' is here, believe me, I don't want to loose any time to use it
as best a I can.
I think I should put a warning sign at the back of my van: beware of
frequent stops! because it happens very frequently that I park in a hurry
to shoot something on the spur of the moment, just because light is there.
PS: it was a bit exceptional (but I hope I'll have to do it again in the
future) but on a recent assignment, I took between 800 and 1200 pictures
per day on more than 12 days at a raw. In fact, it was time the tournament
ends, because I had no more room left on my disks and cards, as I was too
busy shooting to have time to sort the pictures. I don't even want to
imagine what nightmare it would have been with twice more pictures...
Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie
mes reportages sur Jingoo <http://www.jingoo.com/mnaugendre/>
Et bien sûr la page Photographe en
Cévennes<http://www.facebook.com/PhotographeEnCevennes>sur FB, et mon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Digikam-users