[HN Gopher] RawTherapee
___________________________________________________________________
RawTherapee
Author : tosh
Score : 137 points
Date : 2022-11-02 09:10 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rawtherapee.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rawtherapee.com)
| yboris wrote:
| Does it support _JPEG XL_ ? ;)
|
| https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl
| paperdigits_ wrote:
| In the next release it will.
| pestatije wrote:
| Good comparison from DPReview:
|
| https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0404869946/the-best-open-s...
| paperdigits_ wrote:
| I thought that article was quite lazy. It was a long winded way
| of saying "I opened some photos in each application and
| compared the out-of-the-box rendering to LightRoom, but made no
| further effort to try and see what might make these
| applications worthwhile."
| schainks wrote:
| Not going to lie, with this name I thought this was a prank
| website somehow related to that Raw Water fad.
|
| So glad to learn it's a good tool!
| [deleted]
| fedeb95 wrote:
| I've been using it for years with great pleasure. I don't regret
| anything about lightroom and photoshop used previously. Some of
| my pictures I edited with it:
|
| http://federicobonfiglio.it
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Looks like a nice tool.
|
| I can tell you that the "raw conversion" step is not for the
| faint of heart. This is the part between Bayer format, and
| classic RGB.
|
| It's advantageous to try doing some of the pipeline processing
| before the demosaic step.
| radicality wrote:
| Anyone have experience with this vs Darktable?
| hhlevnjak2 wrote:
| I feel Darktable is a lot more powerful and the UI is a little
| easier to use (small things, like the way sliders work with
| mouse and keyboard). Masking in DT is great as well.
|
| What I like about Raw Therapee, the starting point when
| processing RAW files is a lot closer to out of camera JPEG, and
| for just minor tweaks it's simpler and faster.
|
| There's also an alternative build of Raw Therapee as well.
| https://bitbucket.org/agriggio/art/wiki/Home
| bayindirh wrote:
| Darktable is more like Lightroom. RT works on single images
| mostly. Both are capable of great results. I use both with my
| Sony A7-III.
| narrowtux wrote:
| I would love to use the open source alternatives to Lightroom,
| but I find the cloud offering too convenient. The photos are
| available from everywhere, even on my phone I can import photos
| directly from the SD card and start doing light edits. When I
| arrive home, all the photos have already been copied to my
| computer where I can finish the project on the big screen.
|
| Is there something that approximates this "effortless" experience
| using some cloud service and the freedom to use whatever software
| to manage and convert the photos?
| ISL wrote:
| Portability has become a challenge for me in darktable (which
| is my only choice in photo-editing).
|
| My archive is now large enough (~8 TB) that it is impractical
| to carry around. Keeping edits synchronized between home and
| remote is hard. Darktable's internal database doesn't play well
| with remote edits, either. It's tricky.
|
| I'm convinced that there is a simple/clever solution to the
| problem using existing tools (rsync/git/google drive/etc), but
| it will require someone with a really solid understanding of
| Darktable's inner workings and data-structures to prevent
| corruption of the database/library or, worse, the archive
| itself.
| truncate wrote:
| Yes. I love Lightroom for that. It's very convenient and
| approachable. I think the dealbreaker for me for not using
| RawTherapee/Darktable was the performance. Lightable or Capture
| One are way more snappier to work with. You see results as you
| change things. Which is really important when I'm editing bunch
| of photos at once.
| paperdigits_ wrote:
| I keep all my raw files in git-annex. I wouldn't say that it is
| effortless, you need to have a good understand of git, but if
| you do, it works really well and is extremely flexible. Raw
| files go in git annex and sidecar files (XMP, PP3) go into git
| itself.
| cat_plus_plus wrote:
| How is denoise quality? I switched from Darktable to commercial
| DxO PhotoLab, largely because by the time Darktable tames noise
| at around ISO 3200, a lot of resolution and color is lost.
| PhotoLab seems to take everything thrown at it and end up with a
| bright smooth image. Anyway that's one weakness in otherwise
| great free tool.
| kqr wrote:
| Did you work with denoising the chroma channels separately from
| luminance? I believe that's a large part of the trick -- humans
| are far less sensitive to colour resolution issues, and chroma
| noise just looks awful compared to luminance noise.
| paperdigits_ wrote:
| Impulse noise reduction in RawTherapee is pretty good.
|
| For darktable, there was some changes to noise reduction a few
| releases ago, and its now recommended to use two instances of
| the profiled denoise module, on that targets luma noise and one
| that targets chroma noise. It also works pretty well.
|
| Neither work as well as the DxO prime, which is the best noise
| reduction I've ever seen.
| Cyphus wrote:
| I don't blame you for switching from Darktable at all.
| Darktable can be quite powerful but it suffers from ease of use
| and discoverability issues. It's not reasonable for a photo
| processing application to expect its users to deeply understand
| how it all works under the hood in order to get good results.
|
| As someone who did a deep dive into understanding DT's scene-
| referred modules, it changed the way I think of photo
| processing. I now have a hard time using any other photo
| software.
| kqr wrote:
| Yup, I have the same experience even in smaller ways. Wavelet
| decomposition, parametric masks, Lab curves -- these things
| are fundamental to how I think of image processing now, and
| it all came out of forcing myself to be productive with
| Darktable.
|
| None of those things are available in commercial processing
| software.
|
| (Granted, it was a few years ago I did photography stuff
| last, so this may well have changed since then.)
| dheera wrote:
| > suffers from ease of use
|
| Yup, and they keep making it harder to use.
|
| I recently upgraded my system and now I can't even open a
| folder in Darktable, I have to add it to some bullshit
| "library", put the library in a "collection", and then open a
| "film roll" from the collection. Why can't I just browse a
| filesystem tree and click a folder, damnit ...
| IgorPartola wrote:
| What did you use as a resource for this? I struggle with DT
| on every update to get my photos looking like I want when the
| semantics of a module change or a module is replaced with
| something theoretically better but practically with more
| controls that I now need to relearn.
| paperdigits_ wrote:
| The manual has some good overview and explains every module
| and slider.
|
| Bruce Williams, Studio Pektras, and Boris on YouTube.
| Aurlien Pierre if you need in-depth, technical explanation.
| [deleted]
| busyant wrote:
| > Darktable tames noise at around ISO 3200, a lot of resolution
| and color is lost.
|
| Could you elaborate on what this means?
|
| I tried Darktable a few months ago, and no matter how hard I
| tried, my images just looked "washed out".
|
| I assume this is what you mean. I really wanted to use DT
| because the parametric masking features were pretty nice, but
| every image looked vaguely bleached.
| bobsomers wrote:
| If you've got 50 minutes for a very complete and in depth
| answer, this video by Aurelien who works on the pixel pipe
| covers why Darktable tends to look washed out (out of the
| box) compared to other apps and how to conceptualize what
| it's doing and why:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZCwB7FogUs
| busyant wrote:
| Thank you. That's actually one of the videos that I watched
| a few months back. It helped a little bit, but not enough
| for my tastes.
|
| It just seemed like there was a LOT of extra tweaking I
| needed to do for each image. My suspicion is that if you
| want to use DT (effectively), you need to have a deep
| understanding of color theory and image processing (at
| least more than I am willing to devote).
|
| I also enjoyed his rant(s) on the new releases of DT,
| especially the complaints about the UI.
| nuclx wrote:
| I had similar experiences with DT. When taking RAW+JPG I
| always struggled to create an edit of the RAW in DT that
| is more satisfying than the out of camera JPG - and I
| watched quite a few videos and read a few guides, also
| trying to work with scene-referred workflow introduced in
| DT4. I'm currently giving Capture One a shot (Express
| version is free for Sony users) and I'm really pleased
| how accessible the UI is. Applying default adjustments
| already gives a great starting point for further tweaking
| (similar or better than the OOC JPG). Recovering
| highlights also works way better than in DT. It just felt
| like the algorithms in DT are sometimes not quite on the
| same level.
|
| I never tried RawTherapee.
| busyant wrote:
| > I'm currently giving Capture One a shot
|
| This is what I use, too.
|
| I did a lot of side-by-side comparisons between C1 & DT
| on my raw files and I could not get DT to make anything
| that looked like C1's automatic adjustments.
|
| The best I could determine is that the out-of-the-box
| adjustments made by C1 were somewhat complex (e.g., it
| wasn't a 'simple' transformation of rgb values).
|
| Obviously, it's preferable to know what's happening under
| the hood instead of relying on black-magic, but I just
| didn't have the time to invest in trying to figure that
| out.
|
| C1 is really nice. I also compared it to Lightroom and I
| didn't like those results as much as C1.
|
| edit: Although C1's masking features are excellent, I
| wish they had more parametric masking features. That's
| the one thing I miss from DT.
| exar0815 wrote:
| I was always very doubtful about those AI tools, but I
| absolutely second DxO. It actually managed to save some Astro
| Shots which were completely noisy to a manageable level,
| without too much noticeable LoD
| onehitwonder wrote:
| hehe pee
| CommieBobDole wrote:
| You joke, but every time I see this product mentioned my brain
| thinks it's some sort of trendy alternative medicine thing
| that's made from cow urine or something before I remember it's
| a photo processing tool.
|
| I guess the name is memorable, at least.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| It's following in the footsteps of the gimp, which is
| probably not a name which would have been chosen today.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Let's pour one out for the naming of yesteryear, today's
| realm of acceptability is just soooooooo bland
|
| Except for Coq.... you can carry on, good sir
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Whenever I see that name, I think of this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8kPqAV_74M
| godot wrote:
| Before clicking, I legitimately thought this was going to be
| some sort of urine analysis med tech startup. What is the
| reasoning behind this product naming? Does therapee mean
| something in photography?
| rpastuszak wrote:
| Let me guess, a startup "claiming that it had devised urine
| tests that required very small amounts of urine and that
| could be performed rapidly and accurately, all using compact
| automated devices which the company had developed." with a
| surprisingly young and ambitious founder?
| flotzam wrote:
| Oh, they might have a bigger problem than that:
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raw#Verb
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapee#Noun
|
| It's _the rapist finder .com_ but even worse
| barbazoo wrote:
| Why on earth would someone choose a name like this?!
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > RawTherapee was originally written by Gabor Horvath of
| Budapest, Hungary. The name "Therapee" was originally an
| acronym derived from "The Experimental Raw Photo Editor".
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the author (Hungarian has the
| same etymology for therapist, therapy etc.) thought
| therapee means therapy or perhaps therapist. Because
| RawTherapist would make sense as a name.
| [deleted]
| idiotsecant wrote:
| There's a fork of RawTherapee that solves the name problem,
| except they named it ART which is completely undiscoverable.
| Some projects are just cursed with bad naming, I think.
|
| https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63690246
| bayindirh wrote:
| Considering the capabilities, and the quality of the results
| you get, this software is a true gem with darktable.
|
| I love and use both of them with great results.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| Damn, you got me excited for a minute that there was new release.
| But no, this hasn't been updated since 2020. I use rawtherapee a
| lot, and really like it. There is fork, ART, which is more up to
| date. But in my experience rawtherapee is snappier, for some
| reason, so I stick with that most of the time. But if you want
| something more cutting edge then try ART
|
| https://bitbucket.org/agriggio/art/wiki/FAQ
| patdavid wrote:
| There's a news article with project status on the site from a
| couple of months ago:
| https://www.rawtherapee.com/2022/07/rawtherapee-5.9-wip-and-...
| nobleach wrote:
| I have it installed, but frankly DT has been really great for my
| workflow I'm really just a novice shooting a mirrorless vlog
| camera right now - a Sony ZV-E10 with some vintage Canon, Minolta
| and Nikkor lenses. I have a few Nikon DSLRs but they only thing
| they give me is a view finder.
|
| Many years ago, I used Apple Aperture when all my real
| photographer friends were using LightRoom so... I honestly don't
| know what I'm missing by not using the Adobe product.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| What is DT?
| muhehe wrote:
| Darktable
| hef19898 wrote:
| Darktable is great! Some things work differently to
| Lightroom, but it is great if you know what you do in post
| processing. Not that I really know what I do in post, but I
| believe that I get better at it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-03 23:01 UTC)