[KimDaBa] KimDaBa 2.0 is released.

jedd jedd at progsoc.org
Thu Oct 21 16:26:07 BST 2004

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:26 am, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
 ] My general attitude is that the raw file is the digital negative,
 ] while the JPEG is a print from that negative.

 Yeah, I get that .. but the number of times I go back to the image and
 mess with it is pretty small, statistically.  I suppose your point is that
 you batch convert to jpg, so you're basically reserving the right.  I'd
 probably follow the same path but for my camera's woeful speed at
 writing to CF card, even the new 40x one I got for the last trip.  I
 often take bunches of photos (20-30) for later panorama work, and the
 internal memory fills up after the first 8-10 shots even on super-fine,
 leaving me standing around trying to hold the right position for the
 next shot.

 Aside: anyone know of a good panorama tool?  I try hugin periodically
 but it consistently core dumps and/or completely fails to produce any
 kind of output.

 ] I use a heavily hacked-up version of dcraw to do the conversion to
 ] 16-bit TIFF, which produces a 38 MB file from my 6.3 MP camera.  This
 ] version of dcraw mitigates the clipping problems that tend to happen
 ] when shooting high dynamic range subject matter.  For example, try
 ] shooting a sunset with a telephoto lens with the sun sinking to the
 ] horizon.  If you look carefully, the result will probably be very
 ] unnatural.  If you underexpose it by a couple of stops, and process
 ] the raw image correctly, you can get natural-looking results, better
 ] than slide film and probably almost as good as color print film.  I'm
 ] happy to send you my version of dcraw if you'd like to try it.

 My initial response is .. I need to do a lot more photography.

 I do lots of sunsets, but mostly reflected light, and get some pretty good
 results even on jpeg.  But how close they are to the 'original' is anyone's
 guess.  I'll grab dcraw and its gimp plugin and have a go with some raw
 image files from my Minolta and see how I go.  I don't think many of
 my photos actually push the boundaries .. but it's all one big learning

 What kind of unnaturalness should I look out for in that, and other,
 shots?  Are you feeding those changes upstream, or are they really
 specialized for the kind of shots you're taking?

 ] Yes, it would require hierarchical groups to implement hierarchical
 ] folders.

 Do you have any idea how this would be handled?  I mean, they sound
 simple, but I can't get my head around the useability of them .. when
 and how you determine where a new category fits into the hierarchy,
 interconnectedness of it all could become a real mess.  (I mean useability
 in the sense of the GUI component needed to manage them.)

 I have a bunch of photos that definitely need a hierarchical approach
 to make them useful .. doing it with keywords is cumbersome and risky
 (that I might miss some, and that defeats the entire point).  But most of
 my photos work just fine with a keyword or two and the people / location
 thing to identify them pretty uniquely.

 ] Yes, I do.  I use the JPEGS that I generate as index prints, since
 ] kimdaba can't index raw files (and it would be very slow, in any
 ] event).
 ] Again, with JPEG's you're losing a good bit of dynamic range, which is
 ] important in a lot of cases).

 [nod]  Having thought about this the past day or so .. I'm inclined to
 adopt this approach myself for a while and see how it shapes up.  I'll
 have to re-read the bit in the manual about raw images -- I seem to
 recall that lots of things aren't done to them that you kind of expect
 should be at the time you're taking the photo.

 ] It shouldn't have to involve manual work.  If the checksum changes,
 ] the image has changed.

 If the checksum changes, how do you know you've got the same file?
 You can trust the file's name and location only so far.


More information about the Kphotoalbum mailing list