←back to thread

209 points l8rlump | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.217s | source
Show context
strogonoff ◴[] 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 #
babuloseo ◴[] No.44506783[source]
I like this one its simple and easy to use
replies(1): >>44507013 #
strogonoff ◴[] No.44507013[source]
May I ask why choose to shoot raw given simplicity and ease of use are priorities?
replies(3): >>44507116 #>>44507120 #>>44507727 #
inferiorhuman ◴[] No.44507120[source]
There's no inherent usability issue with shooting RAW. My experience has been that none of the open source tools can hold a candle to the proprietary ones.

RawTherapee I uninstalled almost immediately because it crashed a few times and the UI didn't seem to jive with what I wanted to do.

Despite DarkTable's horrific interface and hostile developers I keep it around because I can often beat it into submission (but what a chore that is). And that's the thing. Even if I were shooting JPEGs DT's interface would still be a problem.

replies(2): >>44507159 #>>44507185 #
1. strogonoff ◴[] No.44507185[source]
It’s just “raw”, it’s not an acronym.