Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

41–50 of 127 posts

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

#41
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that it would not work well for cases like painting over parts of the image, which Lightroom et al. allow with ease. If you try to be “holistic” in your raw treatment and like me at most do a graduated filter or mask by colour, RT works well enough (the latest versions improved it a lot, too).

I do a lot of mild re-lighting. If RawTherapee had the path masks from darktable I'd be more than happy.

One way could be exporting lossless 16-bit TIFF or PNG from RT, in some wide colour space and without sharpening, and then doing relighting + final processing steps in another tool… However, if you want to apply a CLUT after relighting then yeah, tricky.

It would be great if RT supported something along the lines of “take the entire canvas after initial raw processing but before CLUT and final touches and put it into a temporary file; allow me to do something with it in any other tool; then load it back and apply the rest of the steps on top of that”, but that might require it to store that edited canvas somewhere in addition to .pp3 file.

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

#42

What is the difference between RAW and Bitmap. I thought Bitmap had no compression

No an expert here but RAW is the data generated by the sensor and requires some heavy processing before you can show it on screen. A bitmap is an image format (assuming you mean the BMP files).

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

#43
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do a lot of mild re-lighting. If RawTherapee had the path masks from darktable I'd be more than happy.

One way could be exporting lossless 16-bit TIFF or PNG from RT, in some wide colour space and without sharpening, and then doing relighting + final processing steps in another tool… However, if you want to apply a CLUT after relighting then yeah, tricky. It would be great if RT supported something along the lines of “take the entire canvas after initial raw processing but before CLUT and final touches and put it into…

Can't stand roundtrips anymore. Yup, I actually apply a LUT after tone mapping in darktable.

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

#44
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are certainly not mutually exclusive! The point of shooting raw is not to painstakingly tweak super-technical details, it’s to get processing latitude to make photos the way you want. Often that involves simple adjustment of shadows, highlights, saturation and so on, applied to a large number of photos in bulk.

The priorities are mutually exclusive: delegating scene data conversion to in-camera engine grants you the most simplicity and ease of use at the expense of control; the territory of technical details grants you the most ability to make the photos looks the way you want at the expense of simplicity. You dial one up, you dial the other down. For example, your choice of demosaicing method can make a tangible difference…

I'm not the person you're responding to, but in my hobby experience it's sometimes the difference between a photo being fine or even great, and being completely unusable.

If the white balance is set wrong in-camera, then the JPG just came out all blue. It's effectively a black and white photo (albeit in shades of blue), and there's nothing to be done about it. Shot in RAW, the photo can be made color again, extremely easily and quickly.

In fact it gets worse, not better, if you on the day try to adjust the white balance, as you go from outdoors to indoors. Not to mention if you change from flash and back. Auto is safer, but when it's wrong, the photo is unusable, and the moment is gone.

But my DSLR is now over a decade old. Maybe "auto" has gotten much better?

So yeah, for me the main thing is to be able to post facto adjust white balance, which JPG does not support. (if you've done it with both JPG and RAW, you know what I mean when I say "does not support")

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

#45
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The priorities are mutually exclusive: delegating scene data conversion to in-camera engine grants you the most simplicity and ease of use at the expense of control; the territory of technical details grants you the most ability to make the photos looks the way you want at the expense of simplicity. You dial one up, you dial the other down. For example, your choice of demosaicing method can make a tangible difference…

I'm not the person you're responding to, but in my hobby experience it's sometimes the difference between a photo being fine or even great, and being completely unusable. If the white balance is set wrong in-camera, then the JPG just came out all blue. It's effectively a black and white photo (albeit in shades of blue), and there's nothing to be done about it. Shot in RAW, the photo can be made color again, extremely…

Right, I suppose shooting raw is good because you need to think less about your settings at shooting time.

I will say that “auto” is pretty decent on the phones in most common lighting scenarios like sunlight/shade/outdoor/tungsten/fluorescent—white point is an entirely subjective thing that cannot be reliably determined automatically, so in my experience you rarely get the correct rendition of, say, bright pink clouds at sunset, or a book with pink pages (the phone would think it must be the some weird lighting that should be corrected for, because obviously a book can only have nearly white pages, right?), etc.—but due to physical limitations of sensor size and inferior optics the phone is worse than even a decade-old APS-C DSLR in most regards overall.

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

#46
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

I fought darktable for two years before feeling right at home. I had used Lightroom since it's inception. I'm happy now I invested the time. I much prefer the control darktable gives me now.

It's not about not "feeling right at home". I've detailed this in other comments but it's just that DT has an abysmal interface and that the devs insist that it needs to be complex. This sort of hostile attitude is part of what spawned Ansel.

  I much prefer the control darktable gives me now.
This is a bit of a myth.

One of my complaints dealt with how unintuitive the sliders are. There's no additional control gained by making the UI widgets difficult to deal with.

Another dealt with trying to set color temperature. There are two places color temperature can be set and they'll both conflict with each other. The newer module is absurdly complex. It's great if you're writing a dissertation on color rendition but less great if you're trying to be productive.

Sure there's more control offered by having ten different demosaicing algorithms to choose from. Unfortunately I can't think of a time when I've needed or wanted that control. Maybe if I shot Fuji or Sigma. But I don't. And most folks don't.

Presets and history are a nightmare. Items in the history widget get aggregated so it's difficult/impossible to pick out individual steps. If you give labels to the actions in a preset (my terminology is off because I've not used DT much in a while)… sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't and things don't appear to pick up the label/group/whatever it's called. If memory serves I had to apply presets in one module to have them visible in the develop module.

The vestigial DAM stuff… ugh.

There's no obvious A/B split views.

Perhaps the most obnoxious thing is that DT shamelessly apes the Lightroom interface but in reality behaves almost nothing like Lightroom. There's a TON of complexity for little-if-any improvement in outcomes.

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

#47
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way could be exporting lossless 16-bit TIFF or PNG from RT, in some wide colour space and without sharpening, and then doing relighting + final processing steps in another tool… However, if you want to apply a CLUT after relighting then yeah, tricky. It would be great if RT supported something along the lines of “take the entire canvas after initial raw processing but before CLUT and final touches and put it into…

Can't stand roundtrips anymore. Yup, I actually apply a LUT after tone mapping in darktable.

Well, it’s not a roundtrip if you just feed the output to another tool. My processing script typically pushes RT-prepared PNG to something like ffmpeg which may do resizing and more, depending on the end format.

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

#48
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fought darktable for two years before feeling right at home. I had used Lightroom since it's inception. I'm happy now I invested the time. I much prefer the control darktable gives me now.

It's not about not "feeling right at home". I've detailed this in other comments but it's just that DT has an abysmal interface and that the devs insist that it needs to be complex. This sort of hostile attitude is part of what spawned Ansel. I much prefer the control darktable gives me now. This is a bit of a myth. One of my complaints dealt with how unintuitive the sliders are. There's no additional control gained…

First, let me concur that Darktable is not great. I found it to be neither quite as simple as Lightroom, nor as powerful as RawTherapee, and severely lacking in documentation.

> Another dealt with trying to set color temperature. There are two places color temperature can be set and they'll both conflict with each other.

There are at least three colour temperature / white balance controls in RT; more if you count output colour space primaries, Lab space curve, etc. as ways of creative white balance control.

I’m not sure I see any particular conflict between them. They all do different things; some of them are more relevant if you want to achieve the most precise representation (e.g., you are digitizing analog prints or paintings), others are more relevant if you are going for a creative look of your own.

It’s probably best to consult RawPedia[0], but as far as I understand:

— One of them controls raw data interpretation, and affects how different tools work down the line (e.g., highlight recovery or targeting sky with wavelets). As far as I understand, you probably want to keep this one technically correct and as close as possible to the true neutral white/grey point; at this step you are helping the tool do the rest of its job and not trying to achieve a look. If you use a colour card, a DCP profile, etc., then you know exactly what to set White Balance controls to.

— There are a couple of controls under CAM model, which you may or may not be using depending on your profile. With scene illuminant you set… well, scene illuminant (the light you have in your scene), and viewing conditions allow you to shift colours to make it look right if you know your photo will be viewed in an environment with particular light.

— Then, of course, you have dozens of different ways of creatively controlling perceived white balance via different curves or CLUT; I think these are most handy if you are going for a look.

[0] https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/White_Balance

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

#49
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are certainly not mutually exclusive! The point of shooting raw is not to painstakingly tweak super-technical details, it’s to get processing latitude to make photos the way you want. Often that involves simple adjustment of shadows, highlights, saturation and so on, applied to a large number of photos in bulk.

The priorities are mutually exclusive: delegating scene data conversion to in-camera engine grants you the most simplicity and ease of use at the expense of control; the territory of technical details grants you the most ability to make the photos looks the way you want at the expense of simplicity. You dial one up, you dial the other down. For example, your choice of demosaicing method can make a tangible difference…

It’s a case of diminishing returns. Shooting raw is a huge and obvious improvement if you want to post-process in almost any way. Conditional on that the workflow should be as smooth and simple as possible. Abstract controls like "clarity" are fine if the result of adjusting them is tangible and almost always does what you want. Giving the user lots of knobs that hardly have a visible effect (let alone a desired effect) is not an improvement.

Almost no professional photographer will care about the intricacies of the demosaicing algorithm, or the choice between a dozen different denoising modules, and Lightroom is entirely correct in not giving you a zillion knobs to adjust things that have no effect on image quality except in the rarest of cases. In 99% of cases the controls that matter are:

* Basic exposure/shadows/contrast etc

* Curves/levels for more control if needed

* White balance

* Cropping, obviously

* Cloning/healing brush

* Simple knobs for sharpening and NR

* Level/perspective adjustment

* Lens aberration correction (most of the time no manual input needed if the lens is in the batabase)

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

#50
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fought darktable for two years before feeling right at home. I had used Lightroom since it's inception. I'm happy now I invested the time. I much prefer the control darktable gives me now.

It's not about not "feeling right at home". I've detailed this in other comments but it's just that DT has an abysmal interface and that the devs insist that it needs to be complex. This sort of hostile attitude is part of what spawned Ansel. I much prefer the control darktable gives me now. This is a bit of a myth. One of my complaints dealt with how unintuitive the sliders are. There's no additional control gained…

I try to daily drive Linux but can't find a simple / nice to use RAW editor. I had high hopes for Darktable but I was astonished how bad the GUI is. When trying to delete photo, it deletes the photo under the pointer, not the photo I selected... WTF ?!? And the whole app feels so complicated... Then there's forks emerging and the dev forces are diluted in multiples applications and Adobe continues to milk its users because Open Source dev can't work together. Between Shotwell, Gthumb, Loupe, RT, DigiKam, and more... Imagine if all this efforts was done in one cohesive app ? Ok I stop dreaming.
Post reply on HN