tags/digikamDavid Bremnerby-nc-sa-2.5
Copyright 2020, David Bremner
https://www.cs.unb.ca/~bremner//tags/digikam/David Bremnerikiwiki2008-03-03T11:45:13Zdigikam and raw part I (software) https://www.cs.unb.ca/~bremner//blog/posts/digikam_and_raw_part_I_software_/
<a href="../../whyCC/">by-nc-sa-2.5</a>
Copyright 2020, David Bremner
2008-03-03T11:45:13Z2007-09-23T22:06:00Z
<p>I wanted to try out raw image processing with my Canon EOS 350D (Rebel
XT). I have been using <a href="http://www.digikam.org">digikam</a> for about a year now to edit and sort
<a href="http://photo.thisbe.org">my photos</a>, so I wanted to see if its (new) raw handling was usable.</p>
<p>The first thing I noticed was that handling of raw images in the
viewer/editor was a little rough around the edges in the current
release 0.9.2. A comment in the kde bug tracker suggested that some
of these bugs were fixed in svn, so off I went.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.digikam.org/?q=download/svn">Compiling from SVN</a> went relatively smoothly. To avoid the hassles of
having KDE pieces in /usr/local, I used the nifty (when it works)
<a href="http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/checkinstall.html">checkinstall</a> to build debian packages. Because I have one debian
package for all of the libs and one for digikam, this conflicts with
several existing debian packages. Not to fear, just keep removing
things and try <code>dpkg -i</code> again.</p>
<p>The next gotcha is that graphicsmagick on debian does not currently
grok 16-bit (per channel) PNG images <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=443706">(Debian Bug)</a>. A workaround is to
install imagemagick instead.</p>
<p>In our next exciting episode, I discuss workflow.</p>