![]() I was seeing rather pixelated images at the “1:1” or 100% view and rather surprised that a camera I had recently bought was performing so badly: was my camera really so badly configured? To keep this story moving at an acceptable pace, I’ll give you the briefest comprehensible summary of my investigation and its conclusion.įirst, I configured my camera to take raw images, and then I took some raw images: digiKam imported them, which is a nice touch, but I really wanted to see what the sensor was actually producing (and actually I still have to figure that out). What I didn’t realise until today, and it was driving me crazy, was that another piece of vital functionality seems to be reserved for the editing mode in digiKam unless you change the settings. Doing so regularly would be somewhat more tedious, I can imagine.) (On the subject of developing using film, ignoring some work experience in a print shop, I have only ever done so in the distant past with a pinhole photography kit, which was actually fun. Anyone who has had to scan negatives with a flatbed scanner with a negative adapter and deal with constant dust contamination, never mind develop film, soon realises what a burden has been lifted from them by digital photography. It is also entirely possible that by not choosing to edit images in digiKam, I am missing out on vital functionality, although I rather adhere to the school of photography that involves as little postprocessing as possible (also known as “PP” amongst squabbling online photography forum participants). View the images in the album, clicking on them to see them at a decent size, zooming in to see detail.Download new images in the pop-up window that digiKam offers containing thumbnails.Choose to download using digiKam when prompted by the notifier. ![]() It is entirely possible that I am doing something wrong as usual, but my way of using digiKam is as follows:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |