Dear all,
I'm very happy to have Shotwell as an option to work on my pictures in
Linux. I think I gave it a fair try working with exclusively for about
2 months while publishing pictures daily to my blog. However, it is
precisely poor RAW handling that is making me go back to Adobe Lightroom
for more "serious" work even if I have to boot in Windows just for that
(serious here means requiring more time or care, I'm not a pro). I'll
still use Shotwell for JPGs in Linux.
Anyway, here are my answers to the survey:
1. What kind of camera do you have?
Canon Digital Rebel XT
2. When you shoot RAW, do you usually shoot RAW+JPEG, or RAW only?
RAW only.
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.)
Max resolution possible: 3474x2314
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?)
About the same, but I don't care about my camera's previews.
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 choose the option that would import my photos quickly into the
database with a decent thumbnail preview. I guess that would be closer
to (b).
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?
7. Any other ideas or comments?
Actually the most annoying thing I see with Shotwell is how long it
takes to do an import of RAW files. Compared with Adobe Lightroom it is
ridiculous, I'd say it's several times slower.
Also, at least for my taste, it is absolutely necessary that Shotwell
really integrates with UFRaw: if I change something in UFRaw it should
be reflected in Shotwell and viceverza, including cropping and
straightening pictures.
Hope this helps. Thanks and keep up the good work.
Rafael.
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
