> Just guessing but worth a try. I think you need to add the lense
> information from the /usr/share/lensfun/slr-canon.
> xml (just the one lense)
> to /usr/share/lensfun/slr-sony.xml and it should work as expected.
>
> I believe darktable *only* parses the camera data file for *your* camera.
Goo
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Victor L wrote:
> I use a Sony A7 with a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4 (+ adaptator), this is an
> old/manual lens so I have to manually specify the lens (with exiv2) in my RAW
> files:
> $ exiv2 -M "set Exif.Photo.LensModel Ascii Canon FDn 50mm 1:1.4" mo *.arw
>
> $ exiv2
> Raster masks would come somewhere after this, on my wishlist, but I
> think they can be useful on a more general level. Imagine loading
> any grayscale image as a mask: That would offer a lot of artistic
> possibilities. Definitely a nice feature for darktable 3.0?
Where I think I want raster m
The upper scale is especially useful to protect parts of the image which
would otherwise be pushed out of limits, for example very bright or dark
areas in case of the equalizer module.
This does not apply to input masks because of the way how the equalizer
works.
Regards,
Markus
Am 09.01.2015 um
Am Freitag, 9. Januar 2015, 17:24:09 schrieb Michael Below:
> Hi,
[...]
> to happen too soon – which is fine. Gift horse etc (OTOH, I would support
> an initiative to buy a 30bit monitor for some devs).
Just for the record, I do have a monitor that supports 30bit, but the Intel
GPU in my laptop
The discussion regarding Luminosity Masks has certainly made me rethink the
way that I process many images.
One 'feature' of parametric masking that still eludes me however and that is
the use of the upper (second) adjustment scale that appears, in the light of
multiple module applications, to
Hi,
For the record: I am quite happy with darktable as it is, I am grateful for all
the work that has been put into it, and I do understand that people work on
this in their spare time.
On this background, I don’t think it is improper to have some wild ideas J
For me personally, the
Am 09.01.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Andre Bischof:
> Am 07.01.2015 um 08:19 schrieb Jack Bowling:
>> On 2015-01-06 10:25 PM, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So I experimented with both DT and Gimp, and indeed parametric masks
>>> can
>>> give the same luminosity masks in the blog post. The results w
Am 07.01.2015 um 08:19 schrieb Jack Bowling:
> On 2015-01-06 10:25 PM, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So I experimented with both DT and Gimp, and indeed parametric masks can
>> give the same luminosity masks in the blog post. The results were almost
>> identical. I decided to write a small tutori
I’m really regretting I suggested this now. Clearly it can’t be done without a
pretty major rework in dt adding a whole different type of masks for I wonder
what purpose? Being able to have a static mask generated from parametric would
be nice and occasionally useful but overall, given the cho
Hi,
I had a look at the XMP specs – e.g. JPEG thumbnails are stored as a base64
text string inside the XMP. darktable could do the same for a grayscale mask
PNG or something like that. You might define a “darktable” namespace and e.g.
an array to hold masks and their locations.
I don’t
Maybe this is related to other issues, e.g. there have been cases when
instead of the selected images, others were deleted (I have had that a few
times).
Kofa
On 9 Jan 2015 00:49, "Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo" wrote:
> Unless he is using the export keybinding, he can't be hovering any image.
> El 0
Hi,
This as already been discussed may times.
The (main) problem with the idea above is that it would require to create a
raster mask from the parametric one (parametric -> vector drawn mask is
impossible in most cases). And this is not an option as we have to store it
in xmp.
Aldric
2015-01-09 0
13 matches
Mail list logo
