With thanks to all respondents, I think my initial mail was apparently
not clearly stating the issue.
The issue is that if one has among the original images (raw+jpg) a
couple that you don't want to touch,
the way Darktable works is that it is virtually impossible to do nothing
for those images, i.e. also not creating the XMP file.
I am aware that by taking special care like not loading the pristine
images, exporting to separate folders etc.one can reduce istakes being
made, but this means a rather cumbersome workflow. I am also aware that
DT will not directly overwrite files ( by default). What I have
experienced is that I have made mistakes because of this, myself to
blame indeed, but "invited" by the fact DT also creates xmp files for
images that are supposed to be untouched, or more precise, applies the
autopreset to these images (which is de facto equivalent with changing
the picture after export.
A solution would be, I think, to have an option ("pristine'0 for an
image that prevents it from being exported, so that one will not even
generate new variations of the pristine image, thus preventing that it
will be incidentially overwritten. This would make DT much more suitable
for those this use case.
Kind Regards,
Bertwim
On 15/08/15 20:40, Bertwim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Darktable is giving me headaches with the following problem
>
> My camera produces an image in both raw and jpg format. Obviously, when
> I am satisfied with this camera jpg-image, there is no need to further
> edit it and I don't want Darktable to touch it. However, this is in
> practice almost impossible,
>
> The reason is that when one loads a set of (raw) images in Darktable
> (not loading the jpg), one invariably will also view the images in
> darkroom mode, also the ones that are already ok. But in darkroom mode
> the auto presets are applied, and on export unintended overwriting of
> the camera picture is luring around the corner.
>
> One can of course select the pristine images in lightroom mode and then
> discard the history stack, but this is cumbersome, error prone and very
> unpractical especially for larger sets of pictures.
> Would it be possible, e.g. to "lock" an image, (and emptying its history
> stack), thus preventing it to be processed by DT?
> Perhaps there are other solutions.
>
> Your views are much appreciated.
>
> Kind regards,
> Bertwim
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Darktable-users mailing list
> Darktable-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Darktable-users mailing list
Darktable-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
