Re: RAW/Versioning improvement ideas

[George Talusan <george convolve ca>]

Yes I've looked at UFRaw.  In fact I looked at using it as my basis
while I wrote gnome-raw-thumbnailer but fell back to plain old dcraw.

It's good but it's not as good as Bibble especially when it comes to
workflow on hundreds of photographs.

Turning F-Spot into the kitchen sink of digital photography is an
admirable goal however there's more to this than just RAW processing.
Management of digital photographs should be similar to the way a
law-firm manages legal documents.  There should be a well-defined life
cycle for a photograph from the moments you take it and import it into
F-Spot.  Versioning of each step of the post-process, whether it's
scaling, sharpening, exporting, etc., should be recorded as a
non-destructive operation.  Archiving or storage retention (i.e., keep a
photograph for X number of time units before backing up) of photographs
is also an important feature that is missing.

I know there exist Bugzilla entries for these things.

A few days ago I ran GAPI over the GEGL CVS to create C# bindings.  It
kind of works but GEGL itself needs a bit of love.. see my post on
gegl-dev.  This would probably be a good starting point.

george


On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 17:20 -0500, Peter Finley wrote:
> Hi George,
> 
> Thanks for contributing.  Have you ever tried UFRaw
> (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/)?
> 
> I, too, am a professional programmer, and I don't know about you, but
> I have some spare time I could contribute to improve the RAW handling
> capabilities of F-Spot (as well as other capabilities).  If we can
> decide on a direction for how this could be implemented, I am ready to
> contribute. 
> 
> Anyone here who can get the ball rolling on this?  I don't want to set
> out and implement a solution only to see the patch it denied for
> whatever reason.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 11/1/06, George Talusan <george convolve ca> wrote:
>         On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:24:25PM -0500, Hubert Figuiere
>         wrote:
>         >
>         > > Maybe it's about time to hear from all F-Spot users who
>         shoot to RAW
>         > > what workflow is ideal for them?
>         >
>         > Adobe Lightroom. So far it is the only that statisfies for
>         various reason: 
>         > 1/ RAW + JPEG is handled properly
>         > 2/ it generate sidecar XMP files and NEVER rewrite an
>         original file
>         > 3/ its keywording is efficient. and see #2 for its
>         persistence
>         > 4/ include RAW processing 
>         > 5/ allow organizing pictures into collections, separately
>         from the
>         > folders (called shoot) and tags (called keywords)
>         
>         Sorry for not replying to the original thread.  I only joined
>         the
>         mailing list when I saw this while lurking in the mail
>         archives. 
>         
>         I'm a semi-professional photographer with a strong background
>         in
>         programming (programming finances for my photography
>         addiction).  My
>         current workflow is as follows:
>         
>         1.  Import RAW's using F-Spot.
>         2.  Tag my photos and tag as Favourites the ones that I want
>         to process
>         3.  Copy Photo Location for selected Favourites and launch
>         Bibble
>         4.  Process RAWs using Bibble
>         5.  Export JPEGs to Gimp
>         6.  Sharpen/Dodge/Burn and scale to size 
>         
>         The finished product I will import into F-Spot as a new
>         version of the
>         originating RAW.  I'll push it to PicasaWeb, a gallery, a
>         blog, or to
>         folders when clients need a CD.
>         
>         My workflow is fairly efficient for being Linux based but it
>         could 
>         improve.  The problem is that there are way too many
>         applications in my
>         pipeline.  Ideally I'd like to just use F-Spot -- it seems
>         good enough
>         for JPEGs just as Picasa is.  Versioning the RAW for each
>         significant 
>         step would be ideal -- similar to layers in GIMP, or an XML
>         file like in
>         GEGL.
>         
>         Overall I can live with my current set-up however my GIMP XCF
>         files need
>         to live outside of F-Spot.  I'd like them to be versioned in
>         F-Spot as well. 
>         
>         george
>         _______________________________________________
>         F-spot-list mailing list
>         F-spot-list gnome org
>         http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
>