Hi, first post to this mailing list and I'd like to say thanks for
letting me enjoy managing my photos using Shotwell.
On 06/04/2011 12:12 AM, Adam Dingle wrote:
Shotwell users,
[..]
1. What kind of camera do you have?
Canon 500D
2. When you shoot RAW, do you usually shoot RAW+JPEG, or RAW only?
RAW+JPEG
3. What photo resolution do you shoot? If possible, can you tell us the
resolution of the JPEG images which your camera embeds in RAW photos?
(You can find out by running 'exiv2 -pp' on a photo, for example.)
Preview 1: image/jpeg, 160x120 pixels, 15967 bytes
Preview 2: image/jpeg, 4752x3168 pixels, 1530063 bytes
4. Generally speaking, how does Shotwell's default rendering of your RAW
photographs compare today with the JPEG images/previews generated by
your camera? Please respond with one of the following: much better,
better, about the same, worse, much worse, unusably bad. If Shotwell's
rendering is poor, can you describe in a few words how it looks worse
(e.g. distortion? color shift? underexposed appearance?)
Poor, the images look underexposed.
5. Suppose that Shotwell offered one or more of the following modes.
Which would you use by default?
a) Shotwell develops all RAW photos at import time. (This is how
Shotwell works today.)
b) Shotwell develops RAW photos only when you first open them. This
would speed importing and save disk space, but might add a delay of
several seconds before you could edit or zoom into a RAW photo after
first opening it.
c) Shotwell stores RAW+JPEG pairs as a single unit, and uses the JPEG
for rendering.
d) Shotwell renders a RAW photo using the JPEG embedded inside it.
I'd go for c, since it is fast, full-res and it wouldn't clutter the
library with 'duplicates'.
6. With options (c) and (d) above, Shotwell could let you switch to a
RAW rendering for individual photos (and Shotwell would develop the RAW
photos only at that time.) Similarly, with options (a) and (b), Shotwell
could let you switch individual photos to render using an embedded or
paired JPEG. How often do you think you'd use this switching feature?
Great idea to have some sort of 'version management' within a picture. I
would use it provided that the images don't look underexposed, but it
also depends on the possible raw-specific enhancements that I would be
able to make within Shotwell. I'm not sure if that's the ambition, though.
7. Any other ideas or comments?
Right now I use RawStudio (easy batch conversion) and Photivo (more
features/control) in combination with Shotwell.
Perhaps a 'unit' as mentioned in Q5c could be made such that it also
groups other conversions of a raw image (e.g. I convert img_6354.cr2
externally to img_6354_1.jpg, sometimes another one with _2). It can
also hold the version with Shotwell's native adjustments or gimp-edited
pictures (I think Shotwell makes a copy adding _modified to the file
name which it sends to gimp/external editor).
Grouping could be done automatically (e.g. same file name base) or
manually (e.g. differently exposed images for HDR have different names,
which I would group under the actual HDR). The switching mechanism from
Q6 can then be used to switch between the RAW, the original JPEG, and
different conversions of the RAW.
Best,
Ivo
adam
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
