raw – Why did I lose my NEF files, and could only find small JPEGs in their place in the Recycle Bin?

raw – Why did I lose my NEF files, and could only find small JPEGs in their place in the Recycle Bin? – Photography Stack Exchange

Suggestions for an easy way to add gps data to jpegs

Suggestions for an easy way to add gps data to jpegs – Photography Stack Exchange

suggestions for easy way to add gps data to jpegs

Your privacy

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

image quality – How can I automatically convert Sony RAW (ARW) to JPEGs as good as the camera creates itself?

One of the other answers, by @Marco, has a negative score, and that is the one that I ended up preferring:

exiftool -b -PreviewImage IN.ARW > OUT.jpg

As pointed out in the comments, this has the disadvantage of not preserving the full resolution of the image. On my 14-year-old camera, the preview image extracted by ExifTool is 1616 x 1080, not quite the resolution of my monitor, but good enough for a web page. The other option for me, since I didn’t want to use proprietary software, was @xiota’s suggestion to use the command line interface of a GUI tool. The tool that I had been using is DarkTable, and the command-line is very simple:

darktable-cli IN.ARW > OUT.jpg

Perhaps for the future, I should read the user’s manual and try to get the camera to save high-resolution JPEGs, but for my immediate needs, the exiftool extraction option produced a suitable resolution and far superior colors.

It’s unfortunate that, at least in my case, the DarkTable default output is so much lower quality than whatever the software in the camera is producing. However, I guess Sony put a lot of work into their software.

I decided to post this additional answer, because I figured I’m not the only web user who is willing to sacrifice resolution for color quality, and I wanted to make sure that the Marco’s answer didn’t get ignored or deleted.

Output of DarkTable (originally 4288 x 2856):

darktable-cli output

Output of ExifTool (originally 1616 x 1080):

exiftool output

Which one would you want to see on a web page?

Also, before you downvote this answer, note that the OP asked for:

  • “software (for Linux, eventually Windows) that helps me to have similar effect like auto in my camera (convert arw into jpeg)?”

    (Check. This software produces an identical effect to that of the camera’s firmware, because it is extracting the output of that firmware.)

  • “I want software to do that and I want to have jpegs as good as camera can process”

    (The jpegs extracted by exiftool are lower resolution than the camera can process – but aside from that, the quality is the same, because they came from the camera. Other answers produced inferior output for my use case)

  • “I want software that can choose proper settings like the camera does.”

    (In one sense, exiftool is not choosing the settings; in another sense, it is choosing exactly the same settings as the camera…)

file management – Converting old photos to JPEGs in Lightroom?

This is a question about photo management in Lightroom Classic – I pretty much know what I’d like to achieve, but I’m bit uneasy to experiment, knowing how flimsy and buggy LR can be. As such, I’m eager to hear from people with first-hand experience in similar operations.

I use a single catalogue, ~30k photos, ~300GB on disk. I’ve noticed recently that I primarily operate on last 2-3y worth of photos, not touching older photos. As such, it’d make sense to “flatten” those older photos to JPEGs; I’d save some disk space and make it easier for myself to browse the photos across different devices (DNGs are routinely rendered in a weird manner the moment I step outside of my win10 ecosystem :). I’d prefer to stick to single catalogue for my photos. Is there a sensible way of converting the photos “in place”, preserving all of the metadata the original photos have? The edit history would obviously be lost, but I’m okay with that. If that kind of process is relatively bug-free, I could imagine yearly move of the cut-off point, to ditch RAWs from yet another year.

Anyone doing something like that? Any gotchas or ways you’ve seen this explode?

image quality – How can I automatically convert Sony RAW (ARW) to JPEGs as good as the camera creates itself?

I recently found myself in the same situation, took some RAW shots, not RAW + Jpeg, and now have a ton of photos that I need to improve in order to show anyone.

I’ve tried a small handful of programs so far- Imaging Edge, Fotor, FastStone Image Viewer.

Here’s what I’ve found-

Imaging Edge works very well. It’s made by Sony and going by the logic that “Sony knows Sony”, I trust that it knows how to work with it’s own camera’s images. And the results look pretty good. It’s also reasonably fast, 500 pictures took around 30-40 minutes.

FastStone Viewer was nearly as good. I used the “Quality = 100” setting, everything else default. It was as fast, or nearly as fast, as Imaging Edge. The quality was nearly indistinguishable. The jpeg file sizes were much larger, around double the size. FastStone has some other options that could be tweaked that might make more of a difference, but I didn’t play with them.

Fotor was not very good. It was VERY slow, taking about 24 hours to convert the photos (it’s hard to tell exactly how long, because my laptop kept sleeping after a few hours, and I’m not sure the processing was working in the background.) Also, the resulting photos were very ‘noisy’. Some looked ok at the regular size, but when I zoomed in on the photo, there were a LOT of extra color and pixels that distracted from the image. Would not recommend this one.

So, as Michael C says, try the Sony program and see what happens. Imaging Edge is actually three programs (viewer, editor and camera remote control). It’s the viewer that I used to batch-output my photos.

Hope that helps.

exploit – Are PPM or BMP images safer than JPEGs or PNGs?

The question is: what makes a PPM file safer? Is it because there’s no room to hide a payload, without becoming too noticeable at first sight?

No. You might argue that for plain text files (not strictly true, but that would allow to vet most of them).

However, for most images, you wouldn’t be able to discern the payload from the image data.

Or is it because the format is so simple to parse, that we can suppose our software will be less likely to be vulnerable, when opening such files? And most importantly, is it even true that we can consider PPM files (and maybe also BMP) to be safer than, say, more complex formats like JPEG or PNG?

Exactly. Decompression routines are complex. Code rendering formats like JPEG or PNG have an higher chance of having a vulnerability on there. Still very unlikely, albeit there were a few of them (e.g. JPEG 2000 one years back), but it is higher than for a dumber format.

photoshop – Best way to process an HDR image from JPEGs

By far the simplest way is to use an HDR-specific app or plugin.

I’ve used both Aurora HDR & the old (used to be freeware) Nik Collection plugin HDR Efex Pro 2, both with reasonable degree of success. Both can take either a single input image or a bracketed set of exposures – even hand-held so long as there’s not too much movement, as they will auto-align.
No doubt there are many alternatives to those you could try too.

Photoshop itself I’ve always thought to be quite poor at HDR compared to these dedicated apps. I don’t use Lightroom, but I can’t imagine it being a great deal better.

plugins – Create progressive JPEGs with intermediate image sizes

I am learning to write themes and plugins to create my own WordPress page.

The images converted by WordPress during download work well in most cases, but there is a problem. Suppose I upload a 5k + photo, it is converted to several sizes (wide versions 2560px, 1920px, 1280px, etc.) for a responsive web – the resulting JPEGs are not progressive. This means that, in some extreme cases, a full size photo is faster than the converted version! Not to mention, I have no control over the quality of the compression – not overall, let alone the size or the image.

Although WordPress makes improvements to responsive images with version 5.3, it is pretty smooth, and so far, they leave the process control to the plug-ins.

However, almost all image optimization plug-ins want to sell you their web service. There is no plug-in that works locally that I have found.

Is there a way to control this process? I do not master WordPress or PHP, but I understand the principles, as well as the OOP, etc. I'm sure I would be able to understand the details, but I need to know where to start at least.
Can I add this functionality to functions.php or do I need to create a plug-in?

Thank you

Do Nikon sensor jpegs have a very slight yellow cast in the image compared to Canon?

Some of your past responses have not been well received and you may be stuck.

Please pay close attention to the following tips:

  • Please make sure to respond to the question. Provide details and share your research!

But to avoid

  • Ask for help, clarification, or answer other answers.
  • Make statements based on opinions; save them with references or personal experience.

To learn more, read our tips for writing good answers.

DreamProxies - Cheapest USA Elite Private Proxies 100 Private Proxies 200 Private Proxies 400 Private Proxies 1000 Private Proxies 2000 Private Proxies ExtraProxies.com - Buy Cheap Private Proxies Buy 50 Private Proxies Buy 100 Private Proxies Buy 200 Private Proxies Buy 500 Private Proxies Buy 1000 Private Proxies Buy 2000 Private Proxies ProxiesLive Proxies-free.com New Proxy Lists Every Day Proxies123