Hi Anton,
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean it is a good
thing DT adds every editing step into the Exif, or that it is normal to
do post processing after editing in DT?
Since using DT and previous to that any other raw converter, I don't use
Gimp anymore, only to use the stamp or healing brush.
Op 19-05-19 om 14:32 schreef Anton Aylward:
On 19/05/2019 06:05, dt-l...@stefan-klinger.de wrote:
Kneops (2019-May-19, excerpt):
I just noticed this and I wonder how I can prevent this, or perhaps their is
a good reason for this? It will probably not make the size of a jpeg much
larger, but it just doesn't seem to be information that needs to go into a
jpeg.
For all images I hand out, I try to exercise special care to scrub all
unnecessary metadata, i.e., delete really everything not really
needed. I forget this most of the time. To be consistent, you'll
need to script this.
It's a good thing that darktable is able to add this data, in case you
might need it. But it also is a path for information to leak out, and
the "normal" user might not know it. For commercial use, I'd be
especially careful: There have been famous cases of journalists giving
away the location of a source through metadata in a photograph.
Indeed.
I'm sure many people think that the JPG output of DT is the finished product.
Some of us see GIMP as a tool for putting the finishing shine after a RAW
conversion, perhaps 'intelligently' edit out distracting background or add a
nice, cloudy sky.
And, along the way, edit the EXIF to remove "unwanted' entries.
I have friends who are still stuck in the 'film' mentality (forgetting that the
shops that processed their film did editing that they were unaware of) who still
think in terms of "as the camera delivers it" and disdain any meaningful
post-processing. A couple even think that there's no point in shooting RAW
since you now have to work to get the JPG out the end. They forget tat the
decision about colours and more is made by the camera. In the phone camera
world that kind of thing is a big issue isn't it? But what if you don't want
the decisions about colour weighting and more made by someone else?
The DT manual makes the point in a section on B&W conversion that the
'classical' B&W films all have different colour sensitivities. that, as well
as books on B&W conversion using the Adobe tools, make it clear that the
'sliders' can do many things to emulate any or all of these films. And more.
My camera, in JPG mode, has the ability to take a B&W+one-colour image.
So I could take a picture of a landscape that was grey except for the green, or
a field of dandelions that only showed the yellow. But what if I wanted a
nature show, that field of dandelions showing the yell AND the green but
everything else B&W or grey? I can do that in DT but not in my camera.
Creativity?
These film-obsessed people never think about how much time we used to spend in
the darkroom! Probably because they never did their own processing.
So they are doomed to life with images "as the camera delivers", even if the
camera is a AI-intensive one in their phone, a phone that cost as much as my
Sony kit + my PC.
So yes, don't forget the post-processing, even the processing that comes AFTER
the use of DT.
____________________________________________________________________________
darktable user mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
