Bug 278110

Summary:	Fuji X100 RAF RAW files doesn't show right under image editor
Product:	[Applications] digikam	Reporter:	Alphazo <kde-1091>
Component:	Plugin-DImg-RAW	Assignee:	Digikam Developers <digikam-bugs-null>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED
Severity:	normal	CC:	alphazo, caulier.gilles, lexa
Priority:	NOR
Version:	2.0.0
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Compiled Sources
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:	4.3.0
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Alphazo 2011-07-19 18:00:09 UTC

Version:           2.0.0 (using KDE 4.6.4) 
OS:                Linux

Raw file from Fuji X100 camera looks underexposed compared to their JPEG version. They show just fine under Lightroom. DNG generated by Digikam and Adobe converter don't look the same.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
When opening the following RAF file http://natzo.com/images/X100-test.RAF
...coming from a Fuji X100 under Digikam image editor I notice a grey cast on the picture, like underexposed. It looks like this:

http://natzo.com/images/X100-test_under-image-editor.jpg

If I open the same RAF file under Lightroom I see something like that:

http://natzo.com/images/X100-test_UnderLightroom.JPG

I then converted the RAF to DNG file using DigiKam's built-in RAW converter but the underexposure is still there (Digikam image editor) even if I open the genereated DNG under Lightroom. Here is the DNG from Digikam:
http://natzo.com/images/X100-test_fromDigikamconverter.dng

Now if I convert the RAF file using Adobe DNG converter it will look just fine under Lightroom but underexposed under Digikam. Here is the DNG from Adobe:
http://natzo.com/images/X100-test_fromAdobeDNGconverter.dng

Is this a normal behavior? None of the RAF files match the corresponding JPEG as far as exposure.


Expected Results:  
RAF picture opened under image editor should show correct exposure. DNG conversion should show correct exposure too.

Comment 1 caulier.gilles 2011-07-19 18:52:50 UTC

which libraw you use. go to help/components info for details
gilles caulier

Comment 2 Alex Tutubalin 2011-07-19 19:21:40 UTC

It looks like auto-brigtnes magic in LibRaw has fooled by large overexposed window.

You need to adjust image brightness and/or exposure correction manually.

Also, camera white-balance is fooled too, the image is too blue. You need to warm your picture by adjusting WB settings.

Comment 3 Alphazo 2011-07-19 19:24:01 UTC

Here are my components:

digiKam version 2.0.0
Exiv2 can write to Jp2: Yes
Exiv2 can write to Jpeg: Yes
Exiv2 can write to Pgf: Yes
Exiv2 can write to Png: Yes
Exiv2 can write to Tiff: Yes
Exiv2 supports XMP metadata: Yes
LibCImg: 130
LibClapack: internal library
LibExiv2: 0.21.1
LibJPEG: 80
LibJasper: 1.900.1
LibKDE: 4.6.5 (4.6.5)
LibKExiv2: 2.0.0
LibKMap: 2.0.0
LibKdcraw: 2.0.0
LibLCMS: 119
LibPGF: 6.11.24 - internal library
LibPNG: 1.4.8
LibQt: 4.7.3
LibRaw: 0.13.5
LibTIFF: LIBTIFF, Version 3.9.5 Copyright (c) 1988-1996 Sam Leffler Copyright (c) 1991-1996 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Marble Widget: 0.11.5 (Stable Release)
Parallelized demosaicing: Yes
Database backend: QSQLITE
LibGphoto2: 2.4.10.1
LibKface: 2.0.0
LibKipi: 1.2.0
LibOpenCV: 2.3.0
Libface: 0.2

Comment 4 Alphazo 2011-07-19 19:26:29 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> It looks like auto-brigtnes magic in LibRaw has fooled by large overexposed
> window.
> 
> You need to adjust image brightness and/or exposure correction manually.
> 
> Also, camera white-balance is fooled too, the image is too blue. You need to
> warm your picture by adjusting WB settings.

The problem appears on most of my pictures even those without overexposed regions.
I'm puzzled by the fact that DNG files generated by DigiKam look underexposed under Lightroom where DNG files generated by Adobe converter look fine under Lightroom.

Comment 5 caulier.gilles 2011-11-03 12:25:25 UTC

Dany,

Do you see Alex comment #2 ?

Gilles Caulier

Comment 6 caulier.gilles 2012-01-26 14:01:07 UTC

Dany,

With last digiKam 2.5.0, Fuji X100 and Fuji X10 raw file work fine into digiKam. I'm sure i use a X10 camera here...

Gilles Caulier

Comment 7 caulier.gilles 2014-08-29 07:18:19 UTC

Dany,

We need a fresh feedback here, using last digiKam 4.2.0.

Gilles Caulier

Comment 8 Alphazo 2014-08-29 08:13:41 UTC

Tried with 4.2.0 and everything looks fine.