[ solved for JPG, but not for ARW ]Looking for an image viewer (to compare scaled down digital photos with less image artifacts)

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 06:33:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 17:46:18 +0200, Ralf Mardorf via ubuntu-users
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 09:31 +0100, David Fletcher wrote:  
>>> For converting the raw files I use ufraw to get exactly the results
>>> I wanted.    
>>
>>I'll take a look at nufraw.  
>
>I checked viewing raw images again.
>
>There's a pitfall with Geeqie. If I select an ARW, but the folder
>contains both, JPG and ARW with the same name, just with another
>suffix, Geeqie opens the JPG, instead of the selected ARW.
>
>After coping an ARW to /tmp and opening it from there, Geeqie seemingly
>converted the raw file. The colours are equal to the colours of the
>JPG, but the resolution is decreased to low quality.
>
>Gwenview does the same, it converts to a sane colour profile, but it
>cripples the resolution.
>
>Digicam keeps the original resolution/size, but the colours are
>disgusting.
>
>nUFRaw keeps the original resolution/size too, but the colour profile
>is completely off, too.
>
>So far no viewer does view a raw that isn't completely broken.
>
>Almost all JPGs are very close to what I've seen in reality, while the
>ARWs are completely off, sometimes partly with a kind of
>pseudo-solarized colour effect or if the colours are ok, the ARW images
>are shrinked.
>
>I don't expect that an ARW does look equal to it's JPG. I expect more
>"depth"/"intensity", if the hardware is able to display it, or at least
>something similar to a JPG, if the hardware doesn't provide the needed
>quality.
>
>The camera provides sRGB and AdobeRGB, selected is sRGB.

http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/disoft/int/idc/intro/raw.html

The camera (should and) did use lens compensation. Sometimes (not
always) also ISO and white balance were automated, but I didn't use any
other automation. Aperture, shutter speed and focus were always set up
manual.

I've seen comparisons of edited JPGs and ARWs. When adding effects, the
ARWs were better. However, to me it seems more or less impossible to
get a usable image out of the raw data in decent time, if at all.

I'm uncertain if storing raw images gains anything at all, if no
software is available, that at least can automatically provide an image
close to the JPGs.