←back to thread

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

(github.com)
236 points l8rlump | 2 comments | 09 Jul 25 02:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
t0bia_s ◴[09 Jul 25 09:37 UTC] No.44507947{3}[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 #
orbital-decay ◴[09 Jul 25 10:06 UTC] No.44508111{4}[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 #
1. t0bia_s ◴[09 Jul 25 16:10 UTC] No.44511763{5}[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 #
2. orbital-decay ◴[09 Jul 25 16:52 UTC] No.44512259[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.