I’m not a huge fan of the winter, so I tend not to shoot that much (hardly at all, if I’m honest) during the colder months. By way of a new-year’s resolution for 2023, though, I intend to break that habbit (at least partially ).
In order to motivate myself, I’m planning to shoot some raw images for submission to raw.pixls.us. Does anyone know if Fugi RAFs and Canon (CHDK) raws are still required? It says so on the webpage, but I’m not sure how up-to-date this is. If they are, I’d be happy to provide these.
P.S. Sorry about all the edits — I’m already on my third glass of Xmas wine!
As I got this advice as well in the past, I wonder what the reason is. I understand that there needs to be enough “going on” at the borders of the image to be able to detect the actual border, but this requirement does not strictly prohibit colour checker images. So is this some copyright issue or what is the reason?
People tent to fill the frame with the color checker… And that’s no good. Rather than make it complicated, just “no color checker” is easier. It also leads to less questions, and hopefully a speedier process.
Nobody runs the color checker though darktable anyway for that.
Someone was arguing with me on github about how color checkers were good… Can’t you just do what is asked without putting up a stink about it?
I think this is not headed towards me but the one you are discussing with on github (at least I hope so; I did not look it up on github anyway). Anyway, today I checked and raw.px clearly states “no color targets”, which it did not when I uploaded raws last time, about a year ago – this hint is a huge improvement. It would still be interesting (just for the sake of learning, not because I could do something useful with this information, but maybe others could) to know which information is extracted from the sample images besides the actual borders. Not sure, probably only Roman can tell, and I don’t want to pull him in as I can imagine that his backlog is not too small. This can wait.
).
