Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: mouse on September 01, 2011, 08:44:55 PM

Title: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on September 01, 2011, 08:44:55 PM
Just became aware of this software.  It seems that any mention of it in this forum is conspicuously absent.  Is there a reason?
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on September 01, 2011, 10:02:35 PM
It seems that any mention of it in this forum is conspicuously absent.  Is there a reason?

yes, you did not search properly... try again.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on September 01, 2011, 10:40:57 PM
Sorry, I did a search.  Found about half a dozen messages where the name "RawTherapp" was mentioned.  None of them contained any evaluation of or opinions about the program itself. 
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kikashi on September 02, 2011, 03:02:41 AM
Sorry, I did a search.  Found about half a dozen messages where the name "RawTherapp" was mentioned.  None of them contained any evaluation of or opinions about the program itself. 
A search on this site for "therapee" produces three pages of hits.

Jeremy
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ejmartin on September 02, 2011, 08:33:55 PM
Interesting; I get the same, but when I type

site:luminous-landscape.com therapee

into Google, I get lots of results.  Looks like something is messed up with LuLa's search engine.

Anyway, what would people like to know about RawTherapee?  I am one of the developers.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on September 03, 2011, 12:59:34 AM
Is there an instruction manual available somewhere on-line?

Ignore.  I found it.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kikashi on September 03, 2011, 03:34:24 AM
Very interesting, because when I copy/paste "therapee" into the search field, I get ONE result only, and that is your post?! "RawTherapee" gives me NO result!?
I searched from the root of the forum. From the main page, click "Discussion forum" then type "therapee" into the search box at the top right.

Jeremy
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: georgelopa on September 03, 2011, 10:15:00 AM
Emil,

I have Nikon D700 and D7000 and I'm now using the RT 4.0.2.2 Window7 64-bit but I'm not able to use CaptureNX2 as my external editor. Even when I save (in a separate folder) the output in 16-bit or 8-bit .tiff file after processing the .NEF file in RT, CaptureNX2 cannot open these .tiff files. CaptureNX2 can open jpeg coming from RT. I only have RT and CaptureNX2, I'm not ready for CS5.

1) Is there a work-around where I can use CaptureNX2  after I have processed the NEF in RT?

2) After processing NEF in RT, can I save it again as NEF?

Thank you very much,
george
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ejmartin on September 03, 2011, 06:31:12 PM
Emil,

I have Nikon D700 and D7000 and I'm now using the RT 4.0.2.2 Window7 64-bit but I'm not able to use CaptureNX2 as my external editor. Even when I save (in a separate folder) the output in 16-bit or 8-bit .tiff file after processing the .NEF file in RT, CaptureNX2 cannot open these .tiff files. CaptureNX2 can open jpeg coming from RT. I only have RT and CaptureNX2, I'm not ready for CS5.

1) Is there a work-around where I can use CaptureNX2  after I have processed the NEF in RT?

Not that I know of.  I thought Capture NX2 was the Nikon proprietary raw converter, so it makes sense that it is only set up to process raw/jpeg files from the camera and not do general image editing; though if it handles jpegs it wouldn't be much trouble for them to allow tiff too.

Quote
2) After processing NEF in RT, can I save it again as NEF?

No.  The image is already converted out of the raw format into an RGB image, a NEF is a raw data container which holds undemosaiced pixel data.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: georgelopa on September 03, 2011, 07:55:58 PM
Thanks a lot Emil.

george
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Greg Campbell on September 18, 2011, 04:40:27 PM
Just became aware of this software.  It seems that any mention of it in this forum is conspicuously absent.  Is there a reason?

Perhaps because it's interface is so buggy and quirky as to be useless....   ???

The illogical interface makes RT frustrating-at-best under Windows.  I don't know why the author feels the need to make such a non-standard interface. 

RT is unusable junk on my Ubuntu system where 3.0a opens in a virtual window that is significantly wider than my real screen.  Any attempt to click on any item in the interface causes the virtual window to jump back and forth between left and right justification.  Cute.

I've tried RT on several platforms over the years and always wind up deleting the "_#$^@#%$#!% pile of !#%@#$"
The program is frustrating - VERY frustrating.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ejmartin on September 19, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
3.0 stopped being alpha software a long time ago.  Does not mean there are no longer any bugs, but it sounds like your evaluation was based on an early version.  Current development version is 4.0.

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Fine_Art on October 08, 2011, 01:41:54 PM
I'm new to RT. The current version is a good product. The interface is easy to use with no manual.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: torger on October 29, 2011, 05:49:09 AM
I am a frequent user of RT, and run the development version. I like to follow the development as it happens, and contribute with a bug report now and then.

If I was a professional with high production I would use lightroom because it is smoother to work with and more "fool proof". For fine art production I would possibly use RT anyway, because it has very competent algorithms and gives the power to the user, power to mess things up too. One example is to provide several highlight reconstruction algorithms, which works best depends on the photo, picking the right can give splendid results, the wrong can ruin the picture which you may not detect if you don't inspect the picture thoroughly.

Another advantage of using RT is artistic integrity, you can always find out exactly what an algorithm does, so you feel that you are in total control, there is no "make picture better in some secret way" type of functions.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: torger on October 29, 2011, 06:05:40 AM
One improvement I hope for is color accuracy, it is currently a bit difficult to work with portraits due to this. Problem is that you need to make  a development effort for every camera model, which is complicated for free software development. ICC handling is improving though so perhaps this can be solved with user contributed profiles based on colorchecker shots eventually. (I actually stopped using the commercial bibble due to poor color accuracy with my camera model.)
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 29, 2011, 02:23:04 PM
h so perhaps this can be solved with user contributed profiles based on colorchecker shots eventually.

and those will be mostly crappy... it takes a lot more to make a good profile then to shell a hundred $ for a chart.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: torger on October 30, 2011, 06:42:17 AM
Yes, for lesser camera models they probably will suck. For popular entry level fullframe cameras (canon 5d for example) I think there however will be a good chance that we will see good quality. There is a fairly large userbase many which care about quality and have technical knowhow.

RT is also currently getting a new ICC infrastructure which look promising.

But color accuracy is not easy, so we will see what happens.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Frankomatic on November 02, 2011, 03:48:43 AM
Emil,

I have Nikon D700 and D7000 and I'm now using the RT 4.0.2.2 Window7 64-bit but I'm not able to use CaptureNX2 as my external editor. Even when I save (in a separate folder) the output in 16-bit or 8-bit .tiff file after processing the .NEF file in RT, CaptureNX2 cannot open these .tiff files. CaptureNX2 can open jpeg coming from RT. I only have RT and CaptureNX2, I'm not ready for CS5.

1) Is there a work-around where I can use CaptureNX2  after I have processed the NEF in RT?

2) After processing NEF in RT, can I save it again as NEF?

Thank you very much,
george

If RT saves the tif with an alpha channel you will not be able to open it in CaptureNX2.  Perhaps there's an option to turn off the alpha channel in RT's save dialog.  There may also be an issue with the type of compression being used, try turning off compression as well.

Once you are able to open the tif in CNX2 you can then save it as a NEF.  However you will no longer see the "Camera" section in its Develop module since it is no longer a raw image file.  Also, the Exposure adjustment in the Quick Fix section will be dimmed (not functional) as it will only work with raw data.

Regards,
Frank

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: georgelopa on November 02, 2011, 10:22:35 AM
Thanks a lot Frank.

I'm now using the latest RT version (4.0.4.2) for Window 7 64-bit but I don't see the option(s) of turning off the Alpha channel and/or compression. Have you done this? If so, could you please direct me on how to do it in a more specific way? Would you mind explaining the Alpha channel?

I like the selective U-technology of the CNX2. So, right now, after processing the NEF in RT unto an 8-bit JPEG, I open the JPEG in CNX2 and convert it to NEF and continue/finish the processing in CNX2. Obviously, it would be better if I can process a tiff file ouput from RT in CNX2.

george
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Frankomatic on November 02, 2011, 01:19:39 PM
georgelopa,

I've never used RT but have used other programs that generated tif's CNX2 couldn't open because of an alpha channel.  I only suggested looking for the option in RT's save dialog because it would be the first place I'd look, the second place would be in the program's preferences.  As a last resort I'd open the tif in Photoshop to remove it there, that's what I had to do.  I think simply flattening the image in PS then saving it will do the trick.

Regards,
Frank
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: georgelopa on November 02, 2011, 02:53:32 PM
Thanks Frank.

No such options too in RT's preferences. Unfortunately, I only have CNX2 to process my NEF files.

george
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on November 09, 2011, 10:47:54 AM
I realize that RT was originally a Windows program, but they are also developing a Mac version.  I tried it and found it to be virtually unusable.  On those rare occasions when it did not freeze, the results were mediocre.  For Mac users wanting the very best raw conversions, RPP is the one.  RPP is not a full featured workflow machine, but the results are clearly superior to all of the big time programs.  Unfortunately for Windows users, there will probably never be a version for them, according to the developers.

Rob 
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: joofa on November 09, 2011, 05:33:53 PM
I realize that RT was originally a Windows program, but they are also developing a Mac version.  I tried it and found it to be virtually unusable. For Mac users wanting the very best raw conversions, RPP is the one.

You can also try Photivo, which is freely available for Mac, Linux and Windows (http://photivo.org/photivo/start), and is much more stable than Rawtherappee.

Joofa
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on November 09, 2011, 07:45:09 PM
I originally installed version 64_4.0.2.2 and, while it seemed quite interesting, it would frequently crash without any apparent reason.  Running Windows 7/64.
I now see on the RawTherapee site a new (beta?) version 64_4.0.4.2.   However the site also recommends an earlier version (64_3.0.1) as being the most stable.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ejmartin on November 09, 2011, 09:34:04 PM
Windows has the most stability issues, unfortunately.  Version 3 was regarded as being the most stable for some, for others it's version 4 (I can't say, I'm on OSX and it's always been stable for me).  Our windows devs would appreciate feedback if you'd be willing to test and file a report either on the RT user forums

http://rawtherapee.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

or Google code issues

http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/list
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on November 11, 2011, 12:03:10 PM

Quote
Windows has the most stability issues, unfortunately.  Version 3 was regarded as being the most stable for some, for others it's version 4 (I can't say, I'm on OSX and it's always been stable for me).
 

You have to be joking.  I just downloaded the very latest Mac version (dated 11-11-11), and when I open it, all that I see is a page with lots of rectangles, nameless folders and no text whatsoever.  If there are images in some of those folders, there is no way for me to find them.  I have to salute the numerous RT developers for their efforts, but clearly, the program is not ready for prime time.

Rob
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ejmartin on November 11, 2011, 12:46:21 PM
 

You have to be joking.  I just downloaded the very latest Mac version (dated 11-11-11), and when I open it, all that I see is a page with lots of rectangles, nameless folders and no text whatsoever.  If there are images in some of those folders, there is no way for me to find them.  I have to salute the numerous RT developers for their efforts, but clearly, the program is not ready for prime time.

Rob

No, not joking, but then again I build the executable myself from source.  I downloaded the 4.0.5 development snapshot myself and verified that it has the issue you are reporting.  If you instead download the 4.0.4 development snapshot it should be OK (at least it is for me; if not for you, please report back here).  The problem you reported appears to be coming from an update to one of the library files that the RT UI depends on, not from changes in the RT code base itself.

I'd be the last to argue that RT 4 is a finished product; it's a work in progress, and the downloads being made available are snapshots of the development branch of the code base.  Hopefully it will be finalized in the next few months and released.  That said, it is stable for many users.  I hope you are able to try the 4.0.4 build and see if it works for you.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on November 11, 2011, 04:33:41 PM
No, not joking, but then again I build the executable myself from source.  I downloaded the 4.0.5 development snapshot myself and verified that it has the issue you are reporting.  If you instead download the 4.0.4 development snapshot it should be OK (at least it is for me; if not for you, please report back here).  The problem you reported appears to be coming from an update to one of the library files that the RT UI depends on, not from changes in the RT code base itself.

I'd be the last to argue that RT 4 is a finished product; it's a work in progress, and the downloads being made available are snapshots of the development branch of the code base.  Hopefully it will be finalized in the next few months and released.  That said, it is stable for many users.  I hope you are able to try the 4.0.4 build and see if it works for you.

v.4.0.4 is the build that I tried on my Mac.  It did not work at all.  So, I will continue to use Capture One as my main raw processor and RPP for the really good stuff.

Rob 

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ejmartin on November 12, 2011, 02:27:31 PM
Rob, what version of OSX are you running?  The builds are for Snow Leopard.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on November 12, 2011, 03:06:06 PM
Rob, what version of OSX are you running?  The builds are for Snow Leopard.

I am using Snow Leopard (OS10.6.8.)

Rob
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: cole2010 on February 21, 2012, 08:03:59 AM
(http://www.herfree.com/avatar1.jpg)Very interesting
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on February 21, 2012, 09:32:45 AM
(http://www.herfree.com/avatar1.jpg)Very interesting

Sorry, but it's impossible for anyone to discern exactly what you find "very interesting" in this thread or whether it is the entire thread.  Could you please be more specific?

Rob
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: EduPerez on February 21, 2012, 11:21:52 AM
Sorry, but it's impossible for anyone to discern exactly what you find "very interesting" in this thread or whether it is the entire thread.  Could you please be more specific?

Rob

There have been several newcomers recently; all share a common pattern with their names, and all of them just post meaningless comments such as this one. I guess they are just spammers, and when these comments become lost among all the comments in this site, their signature will magically change to something far more "interesting".
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: pcg on March 11, 2012, 09:52:11 PM
There have been a couple references to "RPP" in this thread. Could someone translate that acronym into a program name? Thanks.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 11, 2012, 11:53:27 PM
A web search for "RPP software" suggests it is Raw Photo Processor, from http://raw-photo-processor.com (http://raw-photo-processor.com).

I'm not a Mac person, so I can't comment on it.

Eric
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: pcg on March 12, 2012, 01:09:11 PM
Thanks, Eric. I'll explore.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: pcg on March 12, 2012, 02:08:41 PM
Just downloaded RPP and installed it. So far I give it 3 stars. Nice interface, tremendous control. It'll have a learning curve, and is clearly for serious RAW shooters. But I like what I see.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on March 14, 2012, 05:07:28 PM
Just downloaded RPP and installed it. So far I give it 3 stars. Nice interface, tremendous control. It'll have a learning curve, and is clearly for serious RAW shooters. But I like what I see.

I am one of the persons who mentioned RPP in this thread.  A word of caution:  RPP is not a full featured image editor, and what you see on the monitor is not a finished product.  In order to get the most from RPP, you almost always have to use a secondary editing program, such as Photoshop, to apply contrast and other adjustments.  As the developers state on their website, RPP is analogous to a film negative from which one then makes a print.  Just try to get a good histogram and Save with optimizing for post-processing (in the File menu).  In evaluating the program, compare the final product to the final product from other software that you might use.  Having done so with numerous images, I am sold on RPP and use it for all of my best pics.

Rob
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on March 19, 2012, 07:26:19 PM
Follow-up on my earlier posts.  I have now installed v.4.0.7.1 and it appears to be working perfectly.  Steep learning curve before being able to make use of the very broad range of adjustments. 

Interesting quirk(?).  When I just click on an image to view it in the preview panel, but do not make any adjustments nor save it, it still writes a .pp3 file to the folder.

Am looking forward to a more detailed user's manual.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on April 06, 2012, 09:50:07 AM
Am looking forward to a more detailed user's manual.

More detailed than this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHLb_6xNQsEInxiuU8pz1-sWNinnj09bpBUA4_Vl8w8/edit?pli=1)?

Release 4.0.8 is out now, incidentally - some very interesting new features relating to ICC profiles...
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on April 09, 2012, 05:20:48 PM
Keith-

Thanks for that link.

Where can I find more information about the new features relating to ICC profiles?
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on April 09, 2012, 06:29:12 PM
Keith-

Thanks for that link.

Where can I find more information about the new features relating to ICC profiles?

the best place will be to visit the forum and ask : http://rawtherapee.com/forum/index.php -> http://rawtherapee.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=814a2e40835293ebf1165534068ea88c
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on April 09, 2012, 10:54:01 PM
RawTherapee 4.0.8 is supporting ICC profiles that can deliver color look identical to that of Nikon/Phase One software: http://rawtherapee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3967
Additionally, also by Oliver Duis, this version adds support (and automated auto-selection) for DCP profiles that could be easily made and fine tuned using Adobe's DNG profile maker.
More detailed information on this is available in the manual: http://rawtherapee.com/blog/documentation

Full 4.0.8 release notes: http://rawtherapee.com/blog/rawtherapee-4.0.8-released
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on April 11, 2012, 08:13:42 AM
Hi Mouse,

I was being deliberately circumspect in my last post about the new ICC profile functionality in order to avoid possible discussions about copyright, but as Michael has suggested, it's now possible to use Nikon and Capture One profiles in RT, and (as a huge fan of Capture One colours - I've used that converter since r.3) I have to say that the use of the Cap One Canon 7D profile (or even better, something like the 5D Mk II profile, because the 7D profile isn't actually that good!) in RT is giving me images which are essentially indistinguishable from Cap One conversions, in colour terms - it's fantastic.

But the right place to discuss this, as the others suggest, is probably the RT forum.

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on April 11, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
Keith,

Thanks for your reply.  I have now installed v.4.0.8 and have found the profiles already added to the software (including the one for my d700).
Also I have now visited the RT forum and found a lot of good information.

Thanks again. :)
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on April 11, 2012, 09:50:51 PM
I would like to clarify that Nikon and PhaseOne icc profiles are *not* being distributed with RawTherapee builds. Anyone interested to use them in RawTherapee would need to reference  them from the independently licensed & installed Nikon or Phase one products; RawTherapee is simply made compatible to support them if so desired by user, providing a refined rendering using precision of a floating point engine. Enjoy!:)
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on April 12, 2012, 07:05:15 AM
Yep, an important point to make, Michael - I didn't have time to post in more detail earlier, and so simply kept things at a high level.

Mouse, my pleasure.

Just remember that RT is still very much a work in progress, but the promise is huge, and if you're OK with the conversion speed (the devs freely accept there's considerable room for improvement there) the results RT can deliver are jaw-dropping.

The next highlight to be anticipated is a significantly-improved NR algorithm which - based on early examples I've seen - will put RT up there with Lightroom in NR terms.
Title: Re: RawTherapee & Lion
Post by: douvidl on May 13, 2012, 03:55:35 PM
Does anyone know when RT will be available for those of us with Lion?
thanks
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ario on May 13, 2012, 10:52:20 PM
Apparently none of the developers and builders in the RT community uses Lion (answer given in the RT forum), so I see little chances this is going to happen soon.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: OldRoy on May 20, 2012, 11:14:17 AM
Perhaps because it's interface is so buggy and quirky as to be useless....   ???

The illogical interface makes RT frustrating-at-best under Windows.  I don't know why the author feels the need to make such a non-standard interface. 

RT is unusable junk on my Ubuntu system where 3.0a opens in a virtual window that is significantly wider than my real screen.  Any attempt to click on any item in the interface causes the virtual window to jump back and forth between left and right justification.  Cute.

I've tried RT on several platforms over the years and always wind up deleting the "_#$^@#%$#!% pile of !#%@#$"
The program is frustrating - VERY frustrating.


Well, I just installed the current version of this program on a Win7/64 system. It's completely new to me as I've been using CNX2 exclusively for a few years. I've recently bought an Olympus OMD whose supplied RAW software is pretty awful, hence my reason for trying something else.

It sure doesn't look conspicuously buggy to me. Neither is its interface particularly obtuse by share/free- ware standards. How about, er, Linux...?

What I will say about RawTherapee is that the number of variables it offers is pretty bewildering: and it has an awful name. Also opening RAW files from Nikon and Olympus initially reveals very low-contrast, desaturated looking images at the default settings. It's a lot of work to get something resembling what I can get from CNX2 with a few quick adjustments.

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of anyone who has got to grips with RawTherapee as to its usefulness. Is it worth struggling to understand it?
Roy
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: OldRoy on May 20, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
More detailed than this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHLb_6xNQsEInxiuU8pz1-sWNinnj09bpBUA4_Vl8w8/edit?pli=1)?

Release 4.0.8 is out now, incidentally - some very interesting new features relating to ICC profiles...
You'd imagine they might be able to get the guide to display properly in Chrome...
Roy
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: BartvanderWolf on May 20, 2012, 12:00:53 PM
I'd be interested to hear the opinion of anyone who has got to grips with RawTherapee as to its usefulness. Is it worth struggling to understand it?

Hi Roy,

It's so full of features (even more than most other converters put together), and allows so much control, it is indeed bewildering. Its Raw conversion quality can be quite good, but that also depends on how it is used, which requires doing the learning curve thing. The price is also hard to beat, so it all comes down to whether you want to invest some time learning to use it.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 20, 2012, 04:52:00 PM
Dear Old;
I've used RT on a Mac with CS4 & 5.  I found it to be elegant, challenging and offer an array of filters and adjustments that just made my file jump.  It is somewhat arduous, but well worth it, IMHO.  I regret it is not available for CS6.  Pity, Pity.  Have you explored the manual?
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on May 20, 2012, 07:11:01 PM
Quote
I regret it is not available for CS6.  Pity, Pity. 


Don't understand.  What prevents doing raw conversion in RT and then opening the file (tiff) in CS6?
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 20, 2012, 11:23:29 PM
RT don't like Lion.
Just pussycats
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on May 21, 2012, 08:55:37 AM
"CS6" is Photoshop, isn't it?

I've no idea what you mean by your comment, David.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 21, 2012, 09:27:34 AM
Sorry.  My belated attempt at humor.
I am on  a Mac running the Lion  operating program 10.7, I think.  RT is not YET compatable  (sp)  with Lion.  So I can not open RT.
Yes, CS6 is photoshop.
Am I making some sense?
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on May 23, 2012, 02:40:48 PM
I'm running RT on Lion 10.7.4.  There is, however, a problem when you install and try to run the software - it does not launch.  You need to do a little tinkering - see this thread:

http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/detail?id=884

You basically need to go to the /usr/lib directory and copy the libcups library:

/usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib

to the Raw Therapee directory:

RawTherapee.app/Contents/MacOS/lib/

and the application will run fine.  I did this for RT version 4.0.6, available for download here:

http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Best of luck!

kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 23, 2012, 03:35:13 PM
Oh, JOy!!
I shall try this tomorrow.
Many thanks
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 24, 2012, 10:24:48 AM
Kirk;
I can't do it.  I can't find libcups library nor /usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib.   Can you help? Where is /usr/lib directory, what is the path?
Thanks for the efforts.
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: francois on May 24, 2012, 11:39:37 AM
Kirk;
I can't do it.  I can't find libcups library nor /usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib.   Can you help? Where is /usr/lib directory, what is the path?
Thanks for the efforts.
David

In the Finder, choose Go > Go to Folder…, in the text field, type exactly  /usr/lib/
The lib folder should be open, then just find libcups.2.dylib, copy it or drag a copy to your desktop. You should then move this file into the correct folder in RT.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on May 24, 2012, 11:48:28 AM
Exactly as Francois suggests - copy the libcups library to your desktop as the first step.  Then, to access the lib folder within RawTherapee, you will need to go to the RawTherapee.app icon and right-click on it and chose "Show Package Contents" which will reveal the folder structure within the application.  Navigate to the "lib" folder within the RawTherapee.app structure and drop the libcups library there.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 24, 2012, 03:45:39 PM
Kirk;
Finally the files are where they should be and I can launch RT.  Many thanks for your help and patience.   I do notice that the user interface is incomplete, that is all the "boxes, buttons"  are 'x'.   No labels, just x.  Any thoughts as to the next steps?
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on May 24, 2012, 04:36:28 PM
Funny you should mention this.  I have been having issues with my MacPorts install since I transitioned to a new Mac Book Pro a few weeks ago.  I just, today, one hour ago, removed MacPorts and all of the port files and built components that I had installed previously.  I am in the process of reinstalling the ports and their associated files.  

Sooooo - why am I mentioning this?  Because I now have the same problem you just mentioned!

If you read this note on compiling RT rom source:

http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/browse/COMPILE.txt

You will find the dependencies that RT needs.  I think these ports are necessary and my having removed them from my systems to do a fresh build of them broke RTs interface.  Maybe someone here can chime in, but I imagine it is missing a component of the GUI backbone, like cairo or gtk or whatever.  

Bottom line - make sure you have those components installed on your system.

kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: ArioArioldi on May 25, 2012, 01:34:24 AM
Kirk;
Finally the files are where they should be and I can launch RT.  Many thanks for your help and patience.   I do notice that the user interface is incomplete, that is all the "boxes, buttons"  are 'x'.   No labels, just x.  Any thoughts as to the next steps?
David
May be in this post (close the end) you can find a solution to your problem.
http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/detail?id=884#c20
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 25, 2012, 11:50:34 AM
Ario;
Can you "translate" the coding required and how to install same from the link you provided.  I understood the English, but  I am just not that proficient in programming.
Thanks
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on May 25, 2012, 12:19:52 PM
Your best bet is to install MacPorts and use it to set up all of the dependencies RT users for compilation.  This will install mime as well.

MacPorts is pretty simple to use and there are a few GUIs for it as well, including Port Authority. 

I installed all of the dependencies for building RT from source using MacPorts and actually built RT from source last night - and I do not have much experience in doing this kind of thing.  I had to install gcc4.8 to use openMP and I had to point make to a few different libraries for JPEG, TIFF and PNG, but I actually could not believe I successfully compiled RT from source!

kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 29, 2012, 09:31:34 AM
kirkt;

I only wish I could understand "dependencies" and MacPorts etc.  But I can't.  So any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
DAvid
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on May 29, 2012, 09:16:40 PM
The best thing to do would be to follow the instructions in the link I posted earlier about compiling RT from source.  You won't need to worry about compiling it, but the link tells you what ports you need to install.

Here is the link:

http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/browse/COMPILE.txt

This is the bit of the link that names the ports:

Quote
OSX
---

Requirements:
- XCode Development Tools (you only need a subset of these, but it is probably easier to just install all of them)
- MacPorts
   - Set /opt/local/etc/macports/variants.conf to include "+no_x11 +quartz"
   - If you want to build for multiple architectures, add +universal to variants.conf.  Note that this will increase the size of the final application substantially.
      - Set /opt/local/etc/macports/macports.conf key 'universal_archs' to the architectures you wish to build for.  Possible values
        include "i386 x86_64 ppc ppc64"
      - Edit beginning of CMakeLists.txt to enable the same architectures as you added to variants.conf
   - Run "sudo port install cairomm pango-devel gtk2 cmake glibmm gtkmm lcms libiptcdata" to install all needed libraries and tools

MacPorts is an automated system that permits the user to effectively build an application without having to delve too deeply into the dark art of compiling from source.  It will automatically go and find the proper packages and dependencies, download them and compile them.  Macports requires Xcode developer tools to work.  make sure you have installed Xcode for your OS version, otherwise Macports will not be able to do its job.

See: http://www.macports.org/

read through the macports FAQ to get an idea of what you need to understand to use macports - if you don't understand it, don't start blindly typing things into the command line!  the "sudo" part of the command I listed in bold means you are doing something to your computer as a "superuser" which can get you in trouble if you do not know what you are doing.

The ports that rawtherapee requires for compiling from source are:

cairomm
pango-devel
gtk2
cmake
glibmm
gtkmm
lcms
libiptcdata

I found that lcms2 was also required to build from source for my machine.  Once you install MacPorts (the application) you may find it easier to use a GUI front end for MacPorts, like Port Authority, to search for and install ports.  This makes it easier to see port variants and search for ports if you are not comfortable with the command line.

This is not necessarily beginner level stuff, so if you feel like you do not want to risk getting completely screwed up, don;t do it.

Best of luck,

kirk

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 30, 2012, 10:35:50 AM
kirkt;

What is a dependency and why do I care?
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on May 30, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
Applications "depend" upon libraries of subroutines and systems to display things like graphics, gui's, etc. and to perform various operations.  So, for example, RT depends upon the various packages listed above to help it do its thing.  For example, here is the description of "cairo"

Quote
Cairo is a 2D graphics library with support for multiple output devices. Currently supported output targets include the X Window System (via both Xlib and XCB), Quartz, Win32, image buffers, PostScript, PDF, and SVG file output. Experimental backends include OpenGL, BeOS, OS/2, and DirectFB.

cairomm is a c++ wrapper for the cairo graphics library used by RT - the interface for RT is not Mac-specific, but is displayed via an interface library called gtk.  Again, gtk is library of platform-independent GUI utilities that permits RT to be complied and run on multiple platforms.  Etc.  RT as compiled in an application should contain all of the necessary libraries and dependencies, but it may be assuming that you machine is configured to look for certain windowing or GUI environmental variables that your machine does not have or is not configured to have.

So a dependency is something upon which RT depends in order to be built and run properly.  You can google each of the dependencies in the list and find their web page to understand what each one is and likely intuit how RT depends upon each one.  When you tell macports "hey, i need you to install the port of the cairomm library on my machine" macports will say, "alright, but hey, in order to do that, I'm going to need to install a bunch of other libraries that cairo depends on to compile properly" - it will do this automatically, which is nice because you do not need to worry about trying to figure out and install all of the dependencies.

My hunch is that your missing icons are the result of not having the GUI environment set up on your machine.  This may require X11, gtk, etc., dependencies, all of which you can install via macports.

That being said, again, consider that if you do not feel comfortable using macports and installing these ports, do not do it - macports requires that you operate as a superuser, which can quickly get you in trouble if you do not know what you are doing.

As a troubleshooting operation, try this:

Open the Console (/Applications/Utilities).  Clear the current message window (Clear Messages button).  Now launch RT as would normally and see what messages appear - they may tell you what directories or icon files RT is looking for.

kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: douvidl on May 30, 2012, 12:45:05 PM
kirkt;

You are a good person, patient and affable.
Thanks
David
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Sapphie on July 07, 2012, 05:16:24 AM
I managed to get those RT icons by following the steps in comment 20 here

http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/detail?id=884

No need to install macports etc.

Lee
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: mouse on October 02, 2012, 06:29:53 PM
Have just installed V4.0.9.138x64.  Many improvements over V4.0.8 and so far running bug free. ;)

The only real downside of this software is that it is too powerful or too versatile.  It offers at least half a dozen ways to accomplish the same goal; but each with subtle differences in the outcome.  One can (and I have) gained some facility by experimentation, but that makes for a very slow learning curve.  What I end up doing is first editing my photos with ACR/PS and then, when I have time, going back and seeing if I can achieve the same or better results with RT.  Sometimes I can; but when I cannot I doubt it is due to the limitations of the RT software.

If the developers were able to devote some of their time to expanding the user's manual and perhaps providing a few tutorials, this program would surely gain many converts. :)  In any case, kudos to the developers for what they have produced.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on October 03, 2012, 02:05:25 PM
I've more or less given up on RT - and I've been a fan forever.

The lack of control over the direction of its development, and the chaos that has resulted (I told the devs two years ago that they really need proper project management) makes it more and more of a chore to use effectively - especially if, like me, you shoot hundreds of images in a session. There's new, often completely obscure and undescribed functionality in every point release, yet each release introduces new problems, frequently in areas extremely important to IQ, such as "processing profiles".

And - despite all of the highlight options now available in RT - its highlight recovery really isn't as good as it used to be back in release 2.4.1 days.

Too "clever" for it's own good, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 03, 2012, 02:20:32 PM
I've more or less given up on RT - and I've been a fan forever.

The lack of control over the direction of its development, and the chaos that has resulted (I told the devs two years ago that they really need proper project management) makes it more and more of a chore to use effectively - especially if, like me, you shoot hundreds of images in a session. There's new, often completely obscure and undescribed functionality in every point release, yet each release introduces new problems, frequently in areas extremely important to IQ, such as "processing profiles".

And - despite all of the highlight options now available in RT - its highlight recovery really isn't as good as it used to be back in release 2.4.1 days.

Too "clever" for it's own good, I'm afraid.

I 'd say that to use RT properly you either need to be a software developer (at least in your prev. life) and actually follow (and invest some time accordigly) the development on that level or just limit yourself to only few controls (it is unfortunate that RT does not allow to totally hide or customize which tools are visible in UI, like C1 for example does) and do the rest in photoshop (for example)... but then I ask myself... if I need only a few controls then I 'd rather use RPP  :) ... RT team wants to make another LR and saturate the UI with huge amounts of controls, and in the process it seems they overdo the latter and underachieve the former
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on October 04, 2012, 01:36:41 PM
I 'd say that to use RT properly you either need to be a software developer (at least in your prev. life)
Yeah, I was. (I've been a project manager too).

Quote
and actually follow (and invest some time accordingly) the development on that level
Yeah, I did...

RT's problem is simple - no proper project management. No formal, agreed, locked-down roadmap (this really is a key problem); no (real) control over development.

It can't be compared to Lr, because Lr is (comparatively) a paragon of simple design, smart UI decisions, and (relatively) limited, but brilliantly effective, functionality: RT is really just about cramming in as much as can be squeezed into the interface without it bursting, without any real regard to usability.

Up to a point I always liked that about RT - I like options - and I know my way around it: but I no longer enjoy it because, to be blunt, it's too much like hard work.

And just too much.  

I'm not knocking the devs - there are some truly talented, hard-working guys on the RT dev team - but I told 'em almost two years ago that you just can't run a (pretty big, now) IT project as a democracy, a committee, an egalitarian commune, but their insistence on adherence to an "everyone's equal" model (to pander for stroppy devs who threw tantrums at the very prospect that their contributions would not universally be adopted - although ironically, the main perpetrator of that egotistical crap bailed out anyway) has resulted in the confused - and crucially, largely undocumented - condition of RT today, where new functionality appears at every turn (like dual tone curves, odd and unintuitive sharpening theshold controls - UI standards are not part of RT's "model") not because there's an overt, documented need for them, but just because a dev thought they'd be a good idea.

More trinkets than a pensioner's mantlepiece.

It's really just a dev's playground now - which is fine and all - but as a readily usable, accessible and efficient Raw converter for photographers, it's going steadily backwards.


Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on October 05, 2012, 12:12:59 PM
Keith,
With whatever limited development resources RT has, it is evolving at an extremely high rate, with introduction of very essential tools, both advanced and simple.
RT tutorials are in the works, and when launched, will provide a very clear, simple and effective illustrations on options and flexibility of editing that RT allows.
Many new tools are unconventional and novell, but almost all of them (if not all) are documented in the manual.
Each set of tools is introduced via a group discussion and acceptance in googlecode issues, where users are obviously welcome to place requests and voice opinions.
Considering wealth of tools that RT offers, it may be overwhelming to a new or amature user. To address this, RT will offer GUI customization, so tools can be hidden if desired. Here is a reference googlecode issue: http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/detail?id=1578

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 05, 2012, 01:39:45 PM

With whatever limited development resources RT has, it is evolving at an extremely high rate


that is exactly the problem... I mean people who are contributing to RT are truly excited about actually doing something and in the process they care a little less about usability for others, consistency and polishing features that are already in place... sometimes it is actually better not to introduce some new exciting features, but rather stop, trim something actually...
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on October 05, 2012, 02:15:05 PM
and in the process they care a little less about usability for others...
deejjjaaaa, "others" is a very broad term, there is many different levels of "others", but they all are welcome to participate in the project and contribute - either by sharing thoughts on improvement and then actively participating in testing and writing documentation or even coding...

RT has gone through a high rate of expansion in the number of tools, in quality of tools, in workflow enhancements, etc.
There are some major architectural changes that may be implemented in the future to allow more flexible implementation of features and would eventually lead to a refinement stage when RT will get further polished out - in GUI and in the engine. But all with time, as there is a significant constraint on development resources.

Usability-wise, RT has already gone through a great number of enhancements (just search googlecode issue list by the issue type)
and it will require more time and effort to refine it further. There definitely is a desire to do it within the team, but it requires vision, design and implementation.

For comparison purposes, here is Lightroom release schedule(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_Lightroom):
Version 1.0   February 19, 2007
Version 2.0 April 2008
Version 3.0 October 22, 2009
Version 4.0 March 5, 2012

How long would one have to wait to get a bug fix or any new feature to be implemented in Lightroom? This is with Adobe's resources.
Within RT - in some cases it is literally next day, and usually between 1 to 5 weeks!

I am strongly motivated by the spirit of rawtherapee team, it is remarkable how productive the team is with the democratic approach.
There is a steering committee, and it is comprised of both developers and not developers, based on contribution into the project and, specifically,  dedication to it.
Users are absolutely welcome to contribute in many ways possible and it will lead to an even more user-friendly:) state of the art program.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on October 05, 2012, 02:23:01 PM
I am finding the recent posts in this thread to be quite interesting.  About a year ago, I attempted to use Raw Therapee on my Mac, because I had read a number of positive comments from knowledgeable people.  To say the least, the experiment did not go well.  Leaving aside stability issues, the user interface was incredibly complicated.  Still, I might have been willing to forgive this, if the results had been superior to other raw convertors that I had used, but they were not even as good.  One might chalk this up to inexperience with the program on my part, but I can almost always get satisfactory output from new software in fairly short order.  Or it might be attributable to the fact that RT is not optimized for the Mac OS.  But I see it as evidence that that RT was not nearly ready for general use.  Judging from some of the latest comments from Windows users here, the situation does not seemed to have improved.

I would also echo a previous endorsement of RPP.  It is simply the best raw convertor out there and it is worth running a Mac simulation mode on Windows just to  be able to use it IMO.  But RPP is not a comprehensive photo editor, which is what so many people want nowadays.

Rob
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Keith Reeder on October 05, 2012, 02:40:57 PM
RT's development is chaotic, unplanned and uncontrolled, Michael, and it really is a problem. More functionality gets shoe-horned in at every turn, while there's no obvious rhyme or reason to bug-fixing, consolidation or the bedding-in of stable builds/designs - no practical version control that I can see (I keep a regular eye on the Google Code issues list (http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/list)) - and the documentation is desperately out of date as a consequence.

I don't mean to offend, Michael - I've huge respect and affection for many involved in RT - but I've been on the RT forum for years now (although you may have noticed I'm no longer active there), I've seen how RT has developed over the years, and - as a "typical" longstanding and very experienced end user - I have to tell you that it's not remotely the application that it could be, or indeed needs to be.

What it is, is shambolic. I've tried on numerous occasions to make these points, but have been dismissed out of hand because I'm not a dev (even though, as I've been saying for a long time now, development which is controlled only by devs is a recipe for exactly the kind of mess RT is currently in) so I've given up - both on trying to make these points stick on the RT forum, and on the software itself - because these days it's pretty much the poster child of poor design.

Usability matters, and RT is desperately lacking in that regard - it's approaching Photivo (http://photivo.org/photivo/start?redirect=1) in terms of confusing complexity, but at least Photivo is quite up-front about its "steep learning curve", whereas RT aspires to a degree of user-friendliness and - to quote the website (http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features) - "efficiency", that it simply doesn't deliver on.

And the problem is nothing to do with maximising limited resources, Michael - indeed, more control and more formal planning would allow for those limited resources to be used far more effectively and efficiently than they're being used now, where devs are lurching from task to task in an apparently random way, and dealing with what they feel like doing: even in an open source project that's no way to do things, as I've said all along.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 05, 2012, 06:01:29 PM
deejjjaaaa, "others" is a very broad term, there is many different levels of "others", but they all are welcome to participate in the project and contribute - either by sharing thoughts on improvement and then actively participating in testing and writing documentation or even coding...

others exactly those who do not participate in the project... I mean RT is a wonderful thing for participants who can express their ideas in actual code that works... but it is easy to be carried away a little bit...


RT has gone through a high rate of expansion in the number of tools, in quality of tools, in workflow enhancements, etc.

true... but is that rate the goal ? I mean you are trying to be LR... you shall be instead humbly aiming for ACR... or colorrenderingwise (color is subjective, yes) at least for RPP.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 05, 2012, 06:04:37 PM
huge respect and affection for many involved in RT

true - you are all nice people, just slow down
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 05, 2012, 06:09:52 PM
How long would one have to wait to get a bug fix or any new feature to be implemented in Lightroom? This is with Adobe's resources.
Within RT - in some cases it is literally next day, and usually between 1 to 5 weeks!

that is not the point... look at RPP... it is just 1 coder and for quite some time, Iliah Borg, right... I am yet to see a bug that actually stops somebody from using it... because they do not want to do everything... but what they do they do good... fits like a second skin... simple... people go through pain to run OSX in VmWare to use it.. can  you imagine somebody going through pain to use RT... that's it...
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on October 05, 2012, 08:16:44 PM
The main point of my comment was actually completely different.

RT is *not* trying to be Lightroom. I find RT as a versatile tool-set that one can use and improve without waiting for the development cycle of Lightroom.
It took Lightroom 3 years to go from version 3 to version 4.
RT changes are available in real time to those who compile code themselves, and you get to observe project as it is evolving.
So when you are comparing RT to Lightroom, it becomes an unfair comparison as RT is still in transition state being further polished to be more accessible to a broader user base.

About the highlight reconstruction - it is significantly superior in the version 4+ vs any prior versions. There are 4 methods available, try Color Propagation - the slowest but the most powerful.
You need to use highlight reconstruction in combination with Highlight recovery and in some cases (depending on camera model and its color matrix or a DCP profile) raw white point.
Some time ago the use of input camera ICC profiles was also made compatible with Highlight Reconstruction via a checkbox in Color Management, where ICC profile is selected -"Blend ICC highlights with matrix".


Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on November 21, 2012, 09:49:36 PM
I am finding the recent posts in this thread to be quite interesting.  About a year ago, I attempted to use Raw Therapee on my Mac, because I had read a number of positive comments from knowledgeable people.  To say the least, the experiment did not go well.  Leaving aside stability issues,

...


I would also echo a previous endorsement of RPP.  It is simply the best raw convertor out there and it is worth running a Mac simulation mode on Windows just to  be able to use it IMO.  But RPP is not a comprehensive photo editor, which is what so many people want nowadays.

Rob

I am a Mac user and have tried to get a useable version of RT to deliver output, mostly with results that are promising but typically had color management issues.  The Mac compilation and development appears to lag the PC/Linux version as well.

I always like trying new applications and comparing the performance, etc.  I, like Rob, am a devoted RPP user but I still like variety. For Mac folks interested in a useable version of RT v4.0.9, try the compilation history detailed here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmattintosh.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2FRTMX

This is a Japanese blog, so I posted a google translated link to english.  Here is the japanese link:

http://mattintosh.blog.so-net.ne.jp/RTMX

This version is compiled against X11 and has resolved the issues I had with any other Mac compilation I have tried.

Here is the compilation info:

Quote

Branch: default
Version: 4.0.9.161
Changeset: 553b1b936edf
Compiler: gcc-mp-4 4.7.2
Processor: generic x86
System: Apple
Bit depth: 64 bits
Gtkmm: V2.24.2
Build type: Release (Development)
Build flags: -isysroot /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.6.sdk -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 -arch x86_64 -mtune=generic -fopenmp -O3 -DNDEBUG
Link flags:   -mtune=generic
OpenMP support: ON
MMAP support: ON


----------------------------------------------------------------
RAWTHERAPEE 4.0.9.161 64-BIT FOR MACOS UNOFFICIAL BUNDLE
----------------------------------------------------------------
builder : mattintosh4
info    : http://mattintosh.blog.so-net.ne.jp/RTMX

Thanks all developers.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy!

Kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 22, 2012, 02:10:58 AM
I downloaded the latest version for the Mac for my Mac Mini OS 10.6.8 and the installer acted quirky and when I finally launched the app the interface was messed up. Red 'X's all over the place. It was functional and I could do some editing but it just acted pretty clunky.

I'm not putting any more time into this and I'm not interested in troubleshooting it either. Just not worth it.

ACR works just fine for me.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on November 22, 2012, 07:20:38 AM
There were challenges in producing the Mac builds due to redesign and optimization of the build process. The official RawTherapee build, including the Mac version, is being planned for December this year.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: RFPhotography on November 22, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
The main point of my comment was actually completely different.

RT is *not* trying to be Lightroom. I find RT as a versatile tool-set that one can use and improve without waiting for the development cycle of Lightroom.
It took Lightroom 3 years to go from version 3 to version 4.
RT changes are available in real time to those who compile code themselves, and you get to observe project as it is evolving.
So when you are comparing RT to Lightroom, it becomes an unfair comparison as RT is still in transition state being further polished to be more accessible to a broader user base.

About the highlight reconstruction - it is significantly superior in the version 4+ vs any prior versions. There are 4 methods available, try Color Propagation - the slowest but the most powerful.
You need to use highlight reconstruction in combination with Highlight recovery and in some cases (depending on camera model and its color matrix or a DCP profile) raw white point.
Some time ago the use of input camera ICC profiles was also made compatible with Highlight Reconstruction via a checkbox in Color Management, where ICC profile is selected -"Blend ICC highlights with matrix".


I haven't looked at a version of RT for quite some time.  I saw this thread had popped up to the top again so decided to have a read.  When I'd looked at RT in the past it looked very interesting and seemed to do a pretty good job but was missing some important features and functionality.

I do have to agree with what others have said about development.  Pushing features and functionality into a piece of software almost willy-nilly isn't a good approach.  Particularly if there's little to no documentation to provide support for users.  

As an outsider, reading a number of these recent posts what it looks like to me is that RT is really becoming an application by developers for developers.  I don't think that's unusual in an open-source, 'crowd sourced' application.  Michael, look at your response here about highlight recovery.  Four different ways to approach highlight recovery?  "Blend ICC highlights with matrix"?  How many non-coder end users are going to know what that means?  

Reading these past number of comments it seems that folks are right.  RT is being developed without a plan and without forethought.  It seems as though the approach is that there are a bunch of coders sitting around saying 'oh, this would be really cool', then they all go off and compile their own version of the code with their 'cool' thing, submit it and everything is being incorporated into a public release without thought or care to whether what's 'cool' to a developer would be useful or necessary to an end user.  

Yes, it took 3 years to go from LR3 to LR4.  But look at what you get.  You get a well thought out (yes, some people disagree with this), well organised piece of software with a very good user interface.  Fast isn't necessarily better.  And in the end, if the software is released helter-skelter without a plan and without thought as to end user efficiency then you risk losing end users.  You risk not having a viable market if, at some point, there is a decision made to have people pay for the software.  

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on November 22, 2012, 08:15:30 AM
... Particularly if there's little to no documentation to provide support for users.  
...
Michael, look at your response here about highlight recovery.  Four different ways to approach highlight recovery?  "Blend ICC highlights with matrix"?  How many non-coder end users are going to know what that means?  
...

Hi Bob, here is the quote from the RT documentation:

Blend ICC highlights with matrix
Enable to recover blown highlights when using LUT based ICC profiles. Not needed for DCP profiles.
This function merges the imprecise, but recoverable highlights from the DCRAW standard matrix profile into the precise ICC picture. So the color precision is reduced there, but the highlights are available. Note that this only works correctly with RTs default profile, since the (RT DCRAW embedded) matrix must match the ICC profile.

Highlight Reconstruction
Use this tool to try to restore blown-out highlights. It attempts to restore clipped (blown-out) channels in the raw data using nearby data from unclipped channels, if present.
Please note that you need to set “Highlight recovery amount” in the exposure section to see the effect of the reconstruction.
Four different methods are available:

Luminance Recovery
When selecting 'Luminance Recovery', recovered details - if any - will be gray.

Color Propagation
Color Propagation tries to restore the color information in addition to luminosity. This is the most powerful recovery method, although it may sometimes 'guess’' the incorrect colors, depending on the image elements surrounding the blown highlights. Note that 'Color Propagation' is computationally intensive and is therefore slower. This method has been much improved since 3.0 and it will render differently than before.

CIELab
CIELab reduces the luminance channel and tries to restore colors afterwards.

Blend
This restoration mode attempts to guess clipped color channels by filling in their values from the closest match from unclipped highlight regions nearby.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: RFPhotography on November 22, 2012, 08:30:10 AM
Thanks, Michael.  As I indicated earlier, it looks like a 'by developers, for developers' project.  A good bit of that extract would be gobbledygook to a lot of end users, I'd think. 
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: BartvanderWolf on November 22, 2012, 08:56:41 AM
Thanks, Michael.  As I indicated earlier, it looks like a 'by developers, for developers' project.  A good bit of that extract would be gobbledygook to a lot of end users, I'd think.

Hi Bob,

While I agree, I vastly perfer it over; You can choose from 1 method, and also when even offered a choice of method 1, 2 and 3, but without concise explanation.
Sure it is by developers, but it's also for everybody who knows a bit more about what they are trying to achieve, not only developers.
It offers a good Raw conversion, and a lot of features that are sorely missed in the larger commercial offerings.

Besides, it's free, so complaining about the development cycle seems a bit misplaced/unfair (unless one is a contributor who invests some effort, and has earned a right to complain).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: jeremypayne on November 22, 2012, 09:58:24 AM
Thanks, Michael.  As I indicated earlier, it looks like a 'by developers, for developers' project.  A good bit of that extract would be gobbledygook to a lot of end users, I'd think. 

It may be technical, but it isn't aimed at software developers ... But rather advanced digital photographers who are well-versed in the processing of RAW data into images.

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on November 22, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
I downloaded the latest version for the Mac for my Mac Mini OS 10.6.8 and the installer acted quirky and when I finally launched the app the interface was messed up. Red 'X's all over the place. It was functional and I could do some editing but it just acted pretty clunky.

I'm not putting any more time into this and I'm not interested in troubleshooting it either. Just not worth it.

ACR works just fine for me.

Did you try the RTMX build I linked to above?

kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on November 22, 2012, 11:14:10 AM
It may be technical, but it isn't aimed at software developers ... But rather advanced digital photographers who are well-versed in the processing of RAW data into images.

I agree.  I do not use RT regularly, but when interested in trying different approaches to processing raw data, this application provides a lot more access to the under-the-hood aspects of raw processing than other applications.  Of course there are other raw conversion utilities out there for folks who simply want to convert their images and likely most people have their tool of choice.  If you are not inclined to use the experimental and nuts and bolts aspects of RT, you probably won't make a huge effort to get it to work for you and will be quickly frustrated by its quirks and developmental fits and starts.  At some point, it may not be worth it to you to pursue RT, especially if you already have a comfortable workflow in another application.  Different strokes for different folks.

kirk

Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: RFPhotography on November 22, 2012, 11:20:14 AM
Yeah, 'by developers, for developers' may be a bit strong, Bart.  I don't really care whether I have only one option as long as that one option works well.  If it doesn't, then I want more.  While I know some will disagree (and I don't much care if they do), I'd put myself in the more advanced user group and I probably won't go back to take another look at RT.  

As far as 'complaining', that's not what I was doing.  I was expressing an opinion on the methodology that the RT community is using in developing and distributing the software and suggesting, like some others, that a more structured approach would likely be better.  But I don't think it's correct to say that only developers of the software have a right to express their thoughts on the development.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 22, 2012, 02:15:59 PM
Quote
Did you try the RTMX build I linked to above?

kirk

I feel more comfortable waiting it out longer even way past the updated December release. I don't make for a good beta tester.

I'm curious about other Raw converters as well mainly to check for better image quality in the sharpening and color department over ACR. Examining side by side comparison samples between ACR and RT at dpreview peaked my interest.

I'll come back maybe a year later and try it again.

RT is not the only third party RC that has Mac issues.

I had to wait for SilkyPix RC for my Pentax DSLR to catch up for the Mac several years ago. I just gave up on it back then until several days ago when I finally found an updated version for my newer Mac Mini running Snow Leopard and downloaded (using a "proof of license" hack by renaming a loaded SD card so I didn't have to install the old one off the CD) and played around editing some PEFs. Nice to find it runs a whole lot faster without video artifacts and crashing as the original SilkyPix did in Tiger.


However, ACR still kicks its butt when it comes to speed, image quality, organization, simplicity and features.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: robgo2 on November 22, 2012, 03:14:50 PM
There were challenges in producing the Mac builds due to redesign and optimization of the build process. The official RawTherapee build, including the Mac version, is being planned for December this year.

When the official Mac version is released, I will probably take it for a test run.  While I do not consider myself a technical wizard, I am pretty good at coaxing high quality output from the software that I use regularly.  I can accept RT having some features that are comprehensible only to those with very high technical skill levels, but at the very least, it must also have basic features that are comprehensible to the vastly larger number of users with only moderate skill levels.  Believe me, if I can get results that equal or exceed RPP+PS, then I will be both pleased and surprised. 

Rob
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on November 23, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
Did you try the RTMX build I linked to above?

kirk

I did. The generic icons are replaced by real ones, but it still crashes when I double-click a thumbnail to open the image. Looking forward to the official Mac release in december.
BTW
Reading the manual, I saw things I never saw before.
"ICC/DCP Specific Daylight White Balance Values
The daylight white balance temperature values used by your camera and commonly referred to in literature and on the internet are averages. The precise temperature and tint combination you should use for daylight photos is specific to the ICC or DCP input profile auto-matched to your camera by RawTherapee. This will give you a technically color-accurate image where whites are white, though aesthetically it may not be what you want."
For the Canon 5D, the values are given as temp 4994, tint 0998.
I have 2 questions:
1- "The precise temperature and tint combination you should use for daylight photos is specific to the ICC or DCP input profile auto-matched to your camera by RawTherapee"
Does this mean that RT enters these values automatically, or that I shall enter them manually? (If and when I get the Mac version up and running, or grit my teeth and use Windows)?
2-What would the values be for the Canon 5D2?
Curious - Hening
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on November 23, 2012, 04:11:27 PM
Found the answer to question 1 on page 36 of the manual:
"Auto-matched camera-specific profile
Uses RawTherapee's camera-specific DCP input profile that is more precise than a simpler matrix (and fall back to lesser powerful ICC profiles if no DCP is available). Available for some cameras, these profiles are stored in /dcpprofiles (or fallback /iccprofiles/input) directory and are automatically retrieved based on file name matching the exact model name of the camera."
Read first, ask later!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on November 23, 2012, 04:20:58 PM
Hi Hening, the Daylight temperature & tint values you quoted are not set automatically within RT based on camera model, they are provided as a reference.
These values require use of a correct input camera profile, which as you noticed, is provided automatically for some camera models in DCP format. These profiles are measured to be very accurate.
For other camera models a simple DCRAW camera matrix is used instead.

If you are interested, there is an additional document on colorimetry in RT:
www.rawtherapee.com/shared/RawTherapee_Colorimetry.pdf
and recent document  on implementation and use of CIECAM02:
http://jacques.desmis.perso.neuf.fr/RT/ciecamRT3.html
Credit to excellent work of Jacques Desmis.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on November 23, 2012, 05:37:14 PM
Thank you , Michael, for your answer and the links. I'll read the first one with great interest. (I don't speak French).
-Hening.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: kirkt on November 23, 2012, 06:33:23 PM
Quote
I did. The generic icons are replaced by real ones, but it still crashes when I double-click a thumbnail to open the image. Looking forward to the official Mac release in december.
 [\quote]

I'm sorry to hear it crashed. Did you follow all of the install instructions?  There are some extra steps required beyond simply downloading the compilation and running it.

Hope this helps.

Kirk
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Fine_Art on November 24, 2012, 02:32:52 AM
I just downloaded 4.0.9.5

The detail looks pretty good. This is a shot out of a stitch, 5km (as the crow flies) away with a Minolta 300G f4 on the Sony A55. 450mm effective. The shot is shrunk for bandwidth to 1/3rd
100% crop out of it follows

That is from Cypress Mountain lookout to Ambleside beach (West Vancouver) on a summer sunset so air currents are a bit of an issue.

The detail is decent.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on November 24, 2012, 09:52:28 AM
Hi Kirk
Thank you for your concern.
Which are those instructions? I did not see any, beyond instruction to download and install a special version of X11 for MacOS 10.5, but I am on 10.6.8.
Maybe I can make it work anyway?
Hening.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on December 03, 2012, 01:30:11 PM
Hi

I need to get back to the paragraph of the RT manual I quoted in post 337. I still have 2 questions:

1-What is meant by "auto-matched to your camera by Raw Therapee"? What is it that is done automatically? Does it mean that for some cameras, there are profiles measured to that precision, and these profiles are retrieved automatically; for other cameras, it is advised to enter these values in the creation of the profile? Or in the individual image?

2-The figures given are on a precision level down to 1 Kelvin for Temperature, 3 post-comma digits for Tint, e.g. for the Canon 5D 4993 K, 0.998.

"This will give you a technically color-accurate image where whites are white"

"Daylight" changes over a wide range (even if we exclude clouds and shadow). With that level of precision, the figure must refer to one very specific daylight - or? How is this defined?

Kind regards - Hening
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on December 03, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Hi Hening,

1. If Auto-matching is selected, RawTherapee will try to the following , in this sequence:
 a. locate a DCP profile in /dcpprofiles or
 b. if DCP is not found, locate an ICC profile in /iccprofiles or
 c. if DCP and ICC are not found, revert to hard-coded camera matrix.

Matching is dome by camera name, exactly as is shown in the info sectinon in the editor. E.g. "Canon EOS 5D Mark III.dcp"

Camera matrix values are generally from dcraw, but in some cases have custom overrides based on measurements with ColorChecker24

2. Referenced WB values are for mid-day daylight. You are right, "daylight" is a very broad term... it varies with day time, season and geo location. If you need further info, I'd suggest to post this question in rawtherapee's own forum. DrSlony & Jacques might help.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on December 03, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
Hi Micheal, thank you for your answer. Hening.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 05, 2012, 03:25:48 PM
didn't I just read that "oduis" is leaving (or left)... what happened, did he join the dark side (=decided that ACR/LR are good enough) ?
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on December 05, 2012, 03:42:23 PM
Yes, due to time constraints and also availability of "good enough" Lightroom, Olli will continue to provide Windows builds, but not code for the project.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 05, 2012, 04:23:29 PM
Olli will continue to provide Windows builds
at least something... I used to go to visualbakery to download the builds
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Fine_Art on February 18, 2013, 04:08:56 PM
I did. The generic icons are replaced by real ones, but it still crashes when I double-click a thumbnail to open the image. Looking forward to the official Mac release in december.
BTW
Reading the manual, I saw things I never saw before.
"ICC/DCP Specific Daylight White Balance Values
The daylight white balance temperature values used by your camera and commonly referred to in literature and on the internet are averages. The precise temperature and tint combination you should use for daylight photos is specific to the ICC or DCP input profile auto-matched to your camera by RawTherapee. This will give you a technically color-accurate image where whites are white, though aesthetically it may not be what you want."
For the Canon 5D, the values are given as temp 4994, tint 0998.
I have 2 questions:
1- "The precise temperature and tint combination you should use for daylight photos is specific to the ICC or DCP input profile auto-matched to your camera by RawTherapee"
Does this mean that RT enters these values automatically, or that I shall enter them manually? (If and when I get the Mac version up and running, or grit my teeth and use Windows)?
2-What would the values be for the Canon 5D2?
Curious - Hening

I had the crash for a while, it made me go back to the last "stable" release 3.something. Recently I tried again with 4.0.9.50 x64. It is working well.

I also figured out my old color problems, no doubt user error without setting my camera , camera auto WhiBal, Auto levels, in a default profile loaded in preferences.

Now the color is wonderful. I was pleased enough that I bought a bottle of good bourbon to celebrate. I usually only buy liquor < 5 times per year.
The detail was always wonderful.

This is me.  ;D
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Fine_Art on February 18, 2013, 05:44:36 PM
How Awesome is it?

This is a shot out of a pano that had my auto WhiBal totally lost. Something that almost never happens.

This is it fixed with spot WhiBal and Lab adjustments.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Fine_Art on March 17, 2013, 01:15:02 PM
This is an old shot of Bart's Siemen's Star resolution test. I thought I would re-render it with the new RT 4.0.10.0

SHARPENING IS OFF.
The view is 200%
The red circle is the Nyquist limit 92 (x2 for 200%)
The shot was in autoISO at 1250 Sony A55 with 100 Macro

The second shot is the same with R/L deconvolution on.

Contrast by detail is set at contrast+ for all 3 shots which is 1.2 for the finest,then 1.15,1,1,1.05 for the coarsest. This gives a small bump to resolution at the expense of a perfect sine wave on the chart.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Fine_Art on March 17, 2013, 01:24:34 PM
Also attached is the JPG output of the program R/L sharpening on, NR off, everything else the same.

 
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on April 12, 2013, 06:35:56 PM
Now that Raw Therapy has come to the Mac, I'd like to check it. I looked for an option to output a TIF with zero color management for creating a custom camera profile, but could not find one. Did I overlook it?
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on April 12, 2013, 06:42:44 PM
It is in tab "Color", section "Color Management".
Press on the Button "Save reference image for profiling".
BTW, the 4.0.11 version should be out in a few days.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on April 12, 2013, 08:56:15 PM
Thank you, Michael!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on April 24, 2013, 05:41:16 PM
Just heads up, I've made a Faded Pack of processing profiles for RawTherapee:
More info and download link: http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/detail?id=1738#c41
These profiles will be provided in the next RawTherapee version.


Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: MichaelEzra on April 25, 2013, 07:16:00 AM
A bit more engaging illustration with an intentionally slightly overexposed input image:
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on January 05, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Hi!

I am exploring RawTherapee and have a question. I want ProPhoto as the output profile, but with a linear gamma. RT's own RT_Large_g10 seemed to be just that - but it has the Perceptive rendering intent baked in, and I want Rel Col. So I tried to choose ProPhoto, then Output Gamma: linear_G1.0; or Free Gamma: 1.0. In either case, the Output Profile selection is dimmed. What does this mean? Will the dimmed profile be used? And the dimming only means that it can not be changed any more after the gamma is chosen? 

And in case of the Free Gamma: What is the 'Slope' as opposite to gamma?

Maybe the RawPedia entry 'Color Management Addon' contains the answer to my questions - but it is in French, and I don't understand it.

I posted this question in the RT Forum, but there seems to be little traffic there.

Happy new year!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: FranciscoDisilvestro on January 05, 2015, 04:50:16 PM

And in case of the Free Gamma: What is the 'Slope' as opposite to gamma?


The Tone Response Curve (TRC) used in the ICC profiles consist of a linear portion just at the beggining or toe and then a curve expressed as a power function. This is to address an issue at low values where the slope of the curve increases significantly towards infinity. The basic idea is to limit the slope.

For instance, the TRC used for sRGB has a slope (toe) of 12.92 and a power of 2.4. (gamma 2.2 is an approximation)

Another example: Adobe limits (this might change) in their ACE the slope of the curve for Adobe RGB with the function (this is not part of the original Adobe RGB specification):

C= MAX(C' ^ 2.19921875, C'/32) for C' in the range of [0.1]

So the power or gamma is close to 2.2 and the slope is 32

Detailed info here: https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/AdobeRGB1998.pdf (https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/AdobeRGB1998.pdf)

Some converters such as DCRAW (I think RT is using it backstage) allows the user to specify both the slope (toe) and the power
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Iliah on January 05, 2015, 05:05:53 PM
> RT's own RT_Large_g10 seemed to be just that - but it has the Perceptive rendering intent baked in

Is it a matrix profile, or a lut-based? If it is a matrix profile, only colorimetric intents are in play. Baking in perceptual intent into a matrix profile has no effect at all currently.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on January 05, 2015, 06:05:40 PM
Hi!

Thank you for your fast replies!

Francisco, thank you for your explanation. I understand it 'qualitatively'. Just not sure what is the unit of the slope? Or: which number would indicate a straight line with an angle of 45 degrees? (which would be the continuation of the gamma power, if gamma = 1, if I understand that correctly).

Iliah, I don't know. But if I open the processed TIF in PhotoLine, the intent is shown as Perceptive.

In the meantime, it looks like I found the answer to my first question in the out.pp3 file: It says: WorkingProfile=ProPhoto, OutputProfile=ProPhoto, Gammafree=linear_g1.0

So ProPhoto is used - just not sure if it is because I chose it as the output profile, or because the working profile is used if gamma is chosen separately. But for practical use right now, this makes no difference to me, so I can go on with my workflow.

Thanks again!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Iliah on January 05, 2015, 06:34:11 PM
Dear Hening,

I looked at it ( https://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/browse/rtdata/iccprofiles/output/RT_Large_g10.icc?r=e64205d1366b721669874752981fc5634ef2783c ), it is a matrix ICC v.2 profile, it does indeed has perceptual intent set as preferred, which is not supported for matrix profiles, especially of version 2. Any sane color management will fall back to relative colorimetric in this case. Generally it is considered to be an error to tag a matrix profile with perceptual intent.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on January 05, 2015, 07:39:12 PM
Hi again Iliah,
thank you for this clarification! Strange that the RT crew would do this then.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Iliah on January 05, 2015, 07:56:37 PM
Dear Hening,.

Intent in matrix profiles of v.2 does not matter, they may have used a wrong template or something, all other data in profile is OK and the profile should not cause any problems.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: FranciscoDisilvestro on January 05, 2015, 09:43:18 PM
Just not sure what is the unit of the slope? Or: which number would indicate a straight line with an angle of 45 degrees? (which would be the continuation of the gamma power, if gamma = 1, if I understand that correctly).


The slope has no unit. it is the ratio between y and x in a cartesian system. A straight line with an angle of 45 degrees will have a slope of 1

The attached graph shows the components of the sRBG TRC, with a linear part (blue, slope 12.92) and the curve with power 2.4 for the first 560 values of a 16 bit representation. The line and the curve intersect at y=0.0405
The second graph shows the resulting curve, so for values of y < 0.04045 the linear part is used and for greater values the curve with power=2.4 is used

Note: y values between 0 and 1

Regards
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on January 06, 2015, 06:41:17 AM
Thanks to the both of you for your explanations!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on January 06, 2015, 02:53:11 PM
It turns out that the Perceptual rendering intent is baked into ProPhoto!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Iliah on January 06, 2015, 03:03:25 PM
Dear Hening,
It is a common mistake.
You may want to read Myth #21 from
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Hening Bettermann on January 06, 2015, 03:18:38 PM
Thank you Iliah! The much better so for me, since I want the rel col intent. :-) The mis-labelling is however annoying.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: dennbel on January 17, 2015, 07:42:37 AM
Windows version 4.2.73 now out. Just keeps getting better!
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: Isaac on January 19, 2015, 07:17:30 PM
Windows version 4.2.73 now out.

Well, Windows 64-bit version 4.2.73 now out.

I hadn't thought I'd make any use of the film simulation profiles, but I do use them to shake-things-up -- particularly ideas about B&W processing.
Title: Re: RawTherapee
Post by: dennbel on January 20, 2015, 05:51:43 AM
Oh yes 64 bit version. Now the version 4.2.74 W64 bit version is up.