An important point that you appear to miss: Whatever you do, or do not do, in darktable .... to either the RAW or the JPG images on your screen ... the original files are never touched.
On Saturday, August 15, 2015 23:03 Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > Your problem comes from a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of what a > RAW file (not Image) is. The JPEG your camera produces is not what the RAW > image that comes along it has, it is a derivative from the RAW data, > applied some processing in the camera that the designers of it thought that > fits better. > > What the RAW file has is the data captured by the sensor as is, no > processing applied. If you open the file in darkroom and apply no preset > and no base curve you would get a close idea of what you have in the RAW > data. It won't be ever close to what you got from the camera Jpeg. > > What you are seeing is something that has already been described to you in > other email. When we load the images in lighttable we first load the tiny > thumbnail of the jpeg that is embedded in the raw file, as this is faster. > Once you open the image in darkroom, that thumbnail is replaced by a > thumbnail of the processed image. > > El sáb., 15 de agosto de 2015 20:41, Bertwim <b...@xs4all.nl> escribió: > > 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
