Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    RapidRAW: A non-destructive and GPU-accelerated RAW image editor

    (github.com)
    238 points l8rlump | 13 comments | 09 Jul 25 02:37 UTC | HN request time: 1.159s | source | bottom
    Show context
    strogonoff ◴[09 Jul 25 05:49 UTC] No.44506692[source]▶
    The best raw image processing tool I know is called “RawTherapee”. It was developed by one or more absolute colour science geeks, it is CLI-scriptable, its companion RawPedia is a treasure trove of information (I learned many basics there, including how to create DCP profiles for calibration, dark frames, flat fields, etc.), and not to make a dig (fine, to make a bit of a dig) you can see the expertise starting with how it capitalizes “raw” in its name (which is, of course, not at all an acronym, though like with “WASM” it is a common mistake).

    Beware though that it tends to not abstract away a lot of technicalities, if you dig deep enough you may encounter exotic terms like “illuminant”, “demosaicing method”, “green equilibration”, “CAM16”, “PU”, “nit” and so on, but I personally love it for that even while I am still learning what half of it all means.

    I’d say the only major lacking feature of RT is support for HDR output, which hopefully will be coming by way of PNG v3 and Rec. 2100 support.

    replies(6): >>44506737 #>>44506783 #>>44507092 #>>44508512 #>>44511100 #>>44511450 #
    1. Sharlin ◴[09 Jul 25 07:09 UTC] No.44507092[source]▶
    IME in photo post-processing, good UX, smooth multi-photo workflow and intuitive controls beat technical details every time.

    RawTherapee is better than Darktable. But that’s a pretty low bar to clear. There are reasons people pay for Lightroom.

    replies(4): >>44507141 #>>44507839 #>>44507947 #>>44514206 #
    2. strogonoff ◴[09 Jul 25 07:19 UTC] No.44507141[source]▶
    IME GUI is mainly important when you craft a new profile. In many workflows, you don’t do it very often. I create a profile once and then apply it to hundreds of frames without launching the GUI at all or mostly using it just to preview how the profile works with a particular frame and make a couple of minor tweaks.
    3. simonmales ◴[09 Jul 25 09:15 UTC] No.44507839[source]▶
    Partner is getting into photography and I don't have the stomach to purchase some software.

    I threw darktable and rawtherapee on the table but without technical grit you get nowhere really fast.

    It's no my wheelhouse so they are mostly in there own.

    replies(2): >>44509468 #>>44509496 #
    4. t0bia_s ◴[09 Jul 25 09:37 UTC] No.44507947[source]▶
    Because those open-source editors are made by coders, not photographers.

    Those tools you really need for properly edit raws are hidden in blated features (multiple demosaic algorithms) or completely missing (AI masking). And UI is not user friendly.

    replies(2): >>44508111 #>>44511554 #
    5. orbital-decay ◴[09 Jul 25 10:06 UTC] No.44508111[source]▶
    They are made by and for photographers. This software is designed for many use cases, not just creative photography - hence multiple demosaicing algorithms. AI masking is missing exactly because it's made by photographers - they don't have the required expertise. UI is not intuitive because a) it's designed by photographers' committee, not UI designers, and b) you are familiar with a completely different workflow.
    replies(1): >>44511763 #
    6. dsego ◴[09 Jul 25 12:54 UTC] No.44509468[source]▶
    Pixelmator pro is nice on the Mac, and it's a one time purchase, not even expensive. And CameraBag was not bad last time I tried it, also a one time purchase.
    7. josephg ◴[09 Jul 25 12:57 UTC] No.44509496[source]▶
    I've been getting into photography lately too and running into the same question. There's no way I'm getting an adobe subscription. But I'm not sure what tools do I want to pick up instead. Apple Photos has gotten me pretty far, but I'm hitting the limits of what it can do. And my photo library is getting pretty big now - big enough that I want some software to manage where my photos live as well.
    replies(2): >>44510170 #>>44512022 #
    8. Mashimo ◴[09 Jul 25 14:03 UTC] No.44510170{3}[source]▶
    Arrrr, you be a pirate
    9. knowitnone ◴[09 Jul 25 15:50 UTC] No.44511554[source]▶
    why can't they be both photographer and coder?
    10. t0bia_s ◴[09 Jul 25 16:10 UTC] No.44511763{3}[source]▶
    Most photographers don't know how develop software at all.

    Please explain why photographers need 20 differnet sharpening methods, 5 demosaicing algorithms, many colour corrections that are almost useles if AI masking is not present?

    Coders often lost in all kind of geeky features that missing actual usability by targeted audience. Bloated software is not what I would expect from alternative to commercially used proprietary software.

    replies(1): >>44512259 #
    11. CharlesW ◴[09 Jul 25 16:33 UTC] No.44512022{3}[source]▶
    > But I'm not sure what tools do I want to pick up instead. Apple Photos has gotten me pretty far, but I'm hitting the limits of what it can do.

    Be sure to take a close look at Nitro, created by a former Apple lead of Apple's Aperture, iPhoto, RAW Camera and Core Image engineering teams: https://www.gentlemencoders.com/nitro-for-macos/index.html

    12. orbital-decay ◴[09 Jul 25 16:52 UTC] No.44512259{4}[source]▶
    Because it's not necessarily about creative/artistic photography, it's also for things like e.g. microscopy or negative or scan processing, and it's not an alternative to Lightroom which does "magic" unacceptable in many technical use cases.

    You can ignore features that aren't made for you, and actually I think they're mostly hidden by default in DT (make a preset if you don't like the default tool selection). All these features were added because somebody needed them at some point, the DT/RT/ART communities are chaotic and lack vision but they're actually using their stuff.

    >Coders

    As I said, this is not software made by coders for coders. This is exactly how the software made by photographers would look if they lacked organization, focus, and UX skills. If it was made by coders (and UI designers), it would probably have looked like Lightroom and had AI selection.

    13. Jaxan ◴[09 Jul 25 20:01 UTC] No.44514206[source]▶
    I used RawTherapee a ton, but changed to Lightroom because the denoising is so much better. (I’m sure a more expensive camera would also help here, but I have what I have.) Now that I’m used to Lightroom it will be hard to switch back.