---warning no human-readable context here---
this is the one I use to extract jpegs (you should change the crw into
the extensions of your raws, dunno if rawext can handle pentax's raws.
#!/bin/sh
for i in *.crw ; do
basen=`echo $i | sed 's/\.crw$//'`
rawext ${basen}.crw ${basen}.jpg
there is also a program called crwheap , never tried, but I
believe it do something with raw files, ;)
this one:
#!/bin/sh
for i in *.thm ; do
basen=`echo $i | sed 's/\.thm$//'`
jhead ${basen}.thm > ${basen}.info
extracts exif info...
just a pair of little and easy scripts....
I don't know if this would be considered OT, in such a case, please
write me off list, and forgive me to have posted it here in the first
place, that said:
Can you explain what makes Photoshop Elements better than the GIMP?
Which features you need that aren't in the GIMP?
Please notice, this is not a flame start, I just would like to hear
from users what they think about it (the GIMP) and what (for the
users) it still lacks...
Perhaps I may discover some features I've never known of and that may
enhance the quality of my pictures, you know...
If I'll discover that the PS is *so* better than the GIMP, I may
eventually start to use windows for my photographical needs... is the
Windows UI that's just so frustrating... (and the mac one is not so
much better... yet it's better)
please forget the last sentece, thanks ;)
Danilo.
On 5/19/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 19, 2005, at 1:28 AM, danilo wrote:
>
> > ... I made a shell script (sorry for linux only) that automatically
> > extracts the embedded jpegs from every crw (canon raw) files in the
> > directory, it takes few seconds for 50 images so it's fast...
> > Jpegs are fast browsing previews, then you choose the ones you like
> > and open them with the GIMP. (this is what I do)
> > I'd like to give it to you, but I understand you all use WinDOS or Mac
> > OS X, so it is useless (maybe in the MAC OS X environment it may work,
> > how knows??, do you want to try it?)
> > I also made one other script that extract the EXIF and wirte it into a
> > text file named as the original photo but with a different extension
> > (example gratia: crw_1245.info).
>
> Um, Canon CRW files are not the same format as Pentax PEF files.
> Probably similar with respect to the embedded JPEG at some level, but
> your script or the tools it calls to do the job might need to be
> modified a bit for the PEF format.
>
> If your script is bash, tsch, or csch based, it should be able to run
> in Mac OS X with maybe some small changes, presuming the tools it calls
> are available for Mac OS X. If you send it to me, I'll be happy to try
> it out.
>
> BTW: I can't imagine it being much faster or more convenient than
> Photoshop's File Browser or the iView Media Pro application, which read
> the RAW files and produce a preview thumbnail/image catalog directly
> without having to run a script at all, and display the EXIF metadata on
> demand.
>
> > The GIMP is surely better than PS elements, anyone who has used both
> > should agree with me on it... and it costs nothing...
>
> I've tried every successive version of The GIMP: I can't agree with you
> on that. To me, Photoshop and its simplified version, Photoshop
> Elements, is a much more productive piece of software to learn and use:
> it pays back its purchase price in a very short time if you're doing
> photography for a living.
>
> Just my opinion ... If The GIMP works for you, surely they've done
> something useful. ;-)
>
> Godfrey
>
>
