×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Raw Therapee 3 Is Now Free Software

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the eye-altering-alters-all dept.

GNU is Not Unix 162

kantier writes "The only (as far as I know) usable and free (as in beer) program for processing RAW photos outside Windows or OS X is now also free as in freedom. From version 3 onwards, the code is licensed under the GPL v3. The main developer's reasons for opening up the program are a lack of time/resources for full dedication, and a lack of interest in some parts of the program (likes to fiddle with image-processing algorithms, not so much the GUI part) — so the F/OSS model seems to be a perfect fit for this project."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

162 comments

Oh sweet Jesus no (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30814934)

He opened up the code so other people could work on the GUI? This will end badly.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30814992)

Not really. While the Mac and Windows GUI experts get into a pissing match over graphic design, the command line experts will have the interface nailed down. When the project is abandoned, the program will continue to live on forever in Linux distributions.

Hey, Libertarians! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815238)

Guess what, you insufferable nincompoops? Our government is itself the product of a market system. Cities like New York, London, and San Francisco are successful precisely *because* of their enormous governments--they compete for capital, talent, and prestige against cities with small, ineffectual governments that are unable to effectively lure and corral said capital, talent, and prestige. And as goes the city, so go city-states and nations: Somalia, being a libertarian paradise, is a rather unpleasant place to live for non-ideologues. Somalians, those who can, vote with their feet and leave.

Objectivism is nothing but selfishness with a philosophical bumper sticker stuck on its ass that somehow purports to elevate it to respectability. Objectivism will succeed as soon as human nature is purged of empathy, sympathy, love for one's family, love for one's community, love for humanity itself. In other words, never. The only people who take this shit seriously are earnest but naive college students with too much philosophy classes under their belt and no real life experience, 40-something assholes behind on their alimony payments, and nutjobs who horde guns in the woods and consider themselves to be part of the minutement militia, 2 centuries hence. Objectivism has as much a tenuous hold on reality as the KKK and neonazi skinheads. They deserve our attention as much as the mating habits of dung beetles. Oh yeah, I forgot, Ayn Rand is selfish racist classist elitist bitch. Am I making an impression on you here, you fruitcakes? Stay in the woods and spout your ignorant mumbo-jumbo, the real world doesn't need you. we'll take your selfish asocial bullshit seriously when hell freezes over.

Now go suckle Ayn Rand's rotten tits some more and leave the rest of us alone, you stupid fucking Paultards.

Re:Hey, Libertarians! (3, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815408)

Yeah, the free software troll generator is still inferior to the proprietary solutions. Sorry about that.

Re:Hey, Libertarians! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815570)

Erm, while some people attribute open source software to some sort of political belief, sometimes people just want to release crap for free. I've done it. Chill.

Re:Hey, Libertarians! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816102)

New York, London, and San Francisco are a "success" for reasons that are unrelated to their government. But if you look at the liberal laboratories of New York and California, you'll note that they're on the verge of failing. Somolia? They lack strong property rights and an equal rule of law, both of which provide the foundation of capitalism and libertarianism.

Re:Hey, Libertarians! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816548)

No "failing" just means something different in New York and California. In California if we have to reduce the quality of our schools and public services to that of good 'ol Red State like Alabama we consider ourselves Bankrupt. In Alabama they consider it a boom year.

Command line experts (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815472)

Yes, because creating a command line interface requires such advanced design skills.

Re:Command line experts (2, Interesting)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815706)

No, and yet it seems only open source programs get it right 99% of the time.

Re:Command line experts (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815920)

They're getting it right because they're doing what's easy. It doesn't mean they're good.

Re:Command line experts (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815966)

It may be easier, but creating a good CLI interface does require some degree of thought. If you, for example, compare a Linux console to the dismal Windows terminal and what a pain in the rear that is to use, the difference is blatantly obvious. The UNIX philosophy makes a world of difference.

Re:Command line experts (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816326)

It may be easier, but creating a good CLI interface does require some degree of thought. If you, for example, compare a Linux console to the dismal Windows terminal and what a pain in the rear that is to use, the difference is blatantly obvious. The UNIX philosophy makes a world of difference.

Yes the difference is blatantly obvious. 10 people on earth can use Unix and Windows has engulfed the world.

Re:Command line experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816332)

They're getting it right because they're doing what's easy. It doesn't mean they're good.

really. you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Command line experts (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815948)

I blame the fact that Windows has a lousy terminal. The shell isn't irredeemably bad - definitely no Bash, but it certainly sufficed for me in my pre-Windows days - but if it were just more like PuTTY it'd be almost usable for random tasks.

Re:Command line experts (2, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816004)

The windows terminal emulator software sucking hard (and it most certainly does) doesn't really have much to do with windows not having a rich, powerful, and universal set of command line utilities, with properly designed and useful flags and options. Implementing such a pathetic system years after Unix was designed is laughable.

Also, it's shell is woefully underfeatured, compared to something like zsh, or even bash. I could never see myself actually attempting to do real work with it.

Re:Command line experts (4, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816614)

Not too much of a surprise since the reason most closed source applications have poor CLI is because they just don't care about it.

When all you have is a CLI it better work. When a CLI is just a bonus feature to enable specific workflows and batch operations then the CLI is usually minimal.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (3, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815592)

Exactly the problem with FOSS image programs.

GIMP was written by programmers. They add features that they think everyone wants and implements them the way think think is best.

Photoshop was started by photographers. People that wanted to do stuff digitally. It wasn't until I started going through my dad's old photography books that I understood what 1/2 of the tools were and why they were named.

You FOSS zealots can keep on about GIMP, I'll keep getting work done in Photoshop.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815726)

It wasn't until I started going through my dad's old photography books that I understood what 1/2 of the tools were and why they were named.

Great, so you are saying I have to be a photography expert before I can even start to understand the names of things in photoshop. That seems much better.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (4, Insightful)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815816)

Great, so you are saying I have to be a photography expert before I can even start to understand the names of things in photoshop. That seems much better.

Why is that a bad thing? If you're going to be fine-tuning and editing photos, you should know what you're doing. If you don't, well, there's always "auto levels" or "auto color" menu options to use, and off you go. For those that do know what they're doing, more advanced tools are available and are called what you expect them to be called.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (4, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816380)

Great, so you are saying I have to be a photography expert before I can even start to understand the names of things in photoshop. That seems much better.

Yes. That's exactly what we're saying. Just like you have to be a "Compute Expert" and understand what "Mouse" or "Keyboard" is and that a "CD-ROM" goes into the "Tray" or that you need to "Double-Click" on an "Icon" in order to run a program.

Every area has its own vocabulary. Often the names for things are throwbacks to decades or centuries earlier. In the case of photography you can take something like "exposure". In Photoshop exposure has no meaning unless you understand the photographic concept. Similarly in Photoshop the word "Dodge" means nothing unless you understand it from the photographic concept of "dodging" which involves blocking the light of the print in an area and reducing the exposure. Similarly "burning" means selectively extending the exposure to a region of your print. Burn means nothing when you're talking about pixels, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it optically. There are many ways to brighten or darken an image. In the case of Dodge and Burn as an example though you're talking about a very specific type of brightening and darkening.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816726)

Great, so you are saying I have to be a photography expert before I can even start to understand the names of things in photoshop. That seems much better.

Given that the majority of users of a photo editing application will be photographers and graphic artists, it makes perfect sense. You wouldn't expect a large percentage of the users to be computer programmers.

Plus, if you're a non-photographer learning to use the program, then the naming of things will help teach you photography - which would be a good thing, as you're using an application for photographers!

What's next, are you going to complain about software for nuclear reactor design using terms that are familiar to nuclear engineers?

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816892)

...And programming tools use terminology like "build" instead of "make it double-clickable" and
"debug" instead of "it doesn't work".

If you want a graphics program for people who aren't familiar with graphics terminology and don't want to get too deep into the matter, use GIMP.
Personally, I'd rather go with any one of the cheap alternatives to PhotoShop. I'd advise Paint Shop Pro, but there are many other valid alternatives.
For OS's other than Windows and OS-X, I've always liked Pixel32, but I haven't used it in quite a while and it's a commercial products so many Linux users will frown upon it.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815072)

He opened up the code so other people could work on the GUI? This will end badly.

Pish - posh!

BTW, could someone point me to the original GIMP UI? I think that would be AWESOME for this project!

Thanks.

Re:Oh sweet Jesus no (3, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815622)

When I remember how my PHBs handled GUI interfaces in the past, my guess is:
- MOAR BUTTONZ!!!!!!111one(lim (x->0) (sin(x)/x))
- Highlight this! It is important!
- Oh noes! Now everything is highlighted!... Just make it red!
- My clickiez iz 2 smal! Iz maek it huuuugeee!
- Oh noes! No spaes left on full HD! Let’s splitz, wif 1 button in every modal windowz!
- Nowz too compleecated! We needz MOAR WEEZARDZ!!!!
- Yz ur program so sloow n stoopid! Me no can use! Plz 2 fix ASAP! U SUCK! KTHXBAI!
*Original developer starts crying about... now*

P.S.: Yes, my PHBs were very similar to cats. Their behavior made no sense at all, and they ignored every advice or information you gave them. Except when it was about money. They they were all over you. The rest of the time they were outside the house until late at night, or asleep in their office.

Fags and spics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30814938)

You're a bunch of fags and spics.

Re:Fags and spics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815480)

shut up dumb nigger

dcraw (5, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30814964)

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ [cybercom.net]

GPLv2

There is a gimp plugin that provides a very nice front end for it.

They've been in Debian for years.

Re:dcraw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815228)

cat photo.raw | rawtoppm | pnmtojpeg --quality=95 > photo.jpeg

For those of us who don't need a fancy-shmancy GUI.

RAWTherapee is a frontend for dcraw (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815244)

RAWTherapee uses dcraw under the hood.

Changes to the underlying version of dcraw are referenced in the version history on the project website's front page
http://www.rawtherapee.com/ [rawtherapee.com]

Not a frontend (2, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815284)

http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=4&faqid=17 [rawtherapee.com]

Is RawTherapee an interface for dcraw?

No. RawTherapee uses dcraw only for decoding of the raw files. It is not commonly known, but dcraw is the basis of the decoding engines of almost all raw converter software (including Photoshop, LightZone, RawShooter, etc.).

All the algorithms of the image processing steps (including the demosaicing) are RawTherapee's own methods.

Just plain wrong (3, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815526)

. It is not commonly known, but dcraw is the basis of the decoding engines of almost all raw converter software (including Photoshop, LightZone, RawShooter, etc.).

It's not commonly known because it is just plain wrong. Photoshop and Lightroom use Adobe Camera RAW.

dcraw is used by almost all raw converters (3, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816174)

It's not commonly known because it is just plain wrong. Photoshop and Lightroom use Adobe Camera RAW.

Adobe Camera Raw, as well as most of the other commercial software which decodes raw images, used dcraw source and probably still uses much of that code. The license for dcraw permits it, and Dave Coffin is pretty proud of that. He should be- his code is used worldwide by millions of photographers.

Google around, bud. You can find dozens of articles, as well as Dave's resume, talking about this. He lists the dozens of programs which use dcraw, too, on the dcraw homepage.

Re:dcraw is used by almost all raw converters (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816214)

Adobe Camera Raw, as well as most of the other commercial software which decodes raw images, used dcraw source and probably still uses much of that code. The license for dcraw permits it, and Dave Coffin is pretty proud of that. He should be- his code is used worldwide by millions of photographers.

No big surprise - dcraw has reverse-engineered *every* RAW file format out there, and new cameras are being added pretty quickly. (The dirty little secret of RAW files is many manufacturers make RAW file formats proprietary so there's no generic RAW file opener. That is, until dcraw came around. Hopefully things will change with the digital negative format (DNF) format which is a standardized RAW file format).

If you want to open a RAW file, dcraw will understand it. He's got a right to be proud of it. Imagine trying to create a workflow if you have a bunch of different equipment and RAW files, and have to use Nikon's tool for once, Canon's for another, Sony's for a third, etc...

Re:dcraw is used by almost all raw converters (4, Interesting)

E-Lad (1262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816492)

I wouldn't be so generous in your detraction.

ACR, as it stands today, does not appear to be built around dcraw as you imply. It may at some point in the past used snippets or knowledge gleaned from dcraw and just might still today, but ACR is very much Adobe's own creation. In fact, one of the very articles you sort of point to by urging the OP to "google around" talks about this [cnet.com], with Thomas Knoll of Adobe essentially saying "Thanks but no thanks" W.R.T. Mr. Coffin reverse engineering the encryption in Nikon's RAW format.

I use Lightroom and PS CS4 on a daily basis, so I have ACR available and did some snooping. One thing that jumps out at me:

[daleg@iridium]/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CS4/File Formats/Camera Raw.plugin/Contents/MacOS$ strings Camera\ Raw | grep -i copyright
Copyright 2009 Adobe Systems, Inc.
Copyright 2008 Adobe Systems, Inc.
17CCopyrightMLUCTag
Copyright %4d Adobe Systems Incorporated
$$$/Private/CRaw/About/Copyright=^C ^0 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
copyright
xmpDM:copyright
COPYRIGHT : Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Adobe Systems Incorporated
Adobe XMP Core Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright
tiff:Copyright
Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright (c) Eastman Kodak Company, 1999, all rights reserved.
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 2005 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Copyright 2000 Adobe Systems, Inc.
13CCopyrightTag

While probably not definitive, I would expect to see a salutation to Mr. Coffin and dcraw in there if there were dcraw bits present. There is one other binary installed with ACR, a library by the name of NkMiniLib.dylib. Given the name I would suppose this is a library containing the properly-licensed smarts required for ACR to decrypt Nikon NEF files. I admit that this is a hunch on my part, but I think it's a good one given the known circumstances around Nikon as a company and its RAW format - Nikon would rather you buy their Capture NX 2 software for RAW file manipulation. I can only imagine how much Adobe paid or pays for licensing the ability to do this in ACR (and by extension - in Lightroom and Photoshop.)

It is also well-known that Adobe's ACR team creates the profiles that plug into ACR for each camera, they don't lift them from dcraw. It's likely they get samples from manufacturers in advance or soon after a camera's release to divine the profile themselves for release in a future version of ACR.

So color me not convinced, regardless of what Mr. Coffin might put on his resume. In the course of "googling around" I cannot find one authoritative bit of info linking ACR to dcraw. ACR as it stands today doesn't appear to have a whiff of dcraw in it judging from some minor binary snooping... so until proven otherwise, I'd say that millions of photographers wordwide do not use his code as you might claim.

Re:RAWTherapee is a frontend for dcraw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816140)

I'm sorry, I just can't read that as anything but, "Raw-the-rapee."

Re:dcraw (1)

kantier (993472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815392)

It's all right if you want to manage a couple of pictures with gimp, but try 100. or 300. For professional of serious amateur work, you need a GUI that can manage that with decent performance.

Re:dcraw (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815504)

Any professional or serious amateur would know that Gimp is not for managing your pictures. It's an editor. There are other photo managers available in Linux world (with limited editing capabilities). Even Picasa - though via wine - can do a pretty good job of managing pictures. Parent was probably pointing out the fact that this is not really the first FOSS program to offer raw support.

Re:dcraw (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815588)

Why use wine? Picasa is available native for linux now.

Re:dcraw (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815712)

Picasa in not a native Linux app, it ships with & uses Wine libraries under the hood.

And it seems it's being abandoned due to low adoption anyway...

Re:dcraw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815598)

True -- also there are different kinds of graphics pros. There's the kind that would be out of work if the GUI vanished, and the kind that actually know how to write scripts to work far more efficiently than the GUI-dependent types.

Re:dcraw (2, Informative)

TheQuantumShift (175338) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816924)

Also in the repos is RawStudio [rawstudio.org]. It uses dcraw to do conversions, but inside a lightroom-lite (as in it only has the basic abilities you actually use) interface. Unfortunately the "export to gimp" menu option is broken, but it still opens images faster, makes adjustments faster and exports to jpeg faster than lightroom under windows on the same hardware.

Digikam (2, Informative)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30814980)

The only (as far as I know) usable and free (as in beer) program for processing RAW photos outside Windows or OS X... DigiKam was the only one I knew about for AGES before I heard of Raw Therapee.

Re:Digikam (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815220)

You had been missing much then :D ... One of my hobbies is photography and I'm using Linux in my home desktop and RawTherapee is GOD-SENT (all caps for awesomeness).

I just hope this would be for the better of RAWTherapee, if you read various reviews from photography websites, this is almost on par and outperforms commercial versions like Lightroom in certain areas. The batch processing is somewhat lacking but I'm hoping someone would now tackle that.

Re:Digikam (1)

kantier (993472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815362)

I wasn't really clear in that sentence.

I do photography for free software related events, and when I have the 300-something RAWs for postprocessing I need something that can let me work with sets of images, not individual images. Currently I use Lightroom because it's the only thing that gets the job done in relaistic time, because of GUI issues. I used RawTherapee before but, despite being the best I could find, it wasn't there yet (I'm talking about 2.3, more or less). With the changes announced for 3.0 I think it may be usable again for that kind of work.

I used digikam before, but with JPEGs, with RAWs it was impossible.

Re:Digikam (1)

mattcsn (1592281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815404)

Have you looked at Bibble 5 [bibblelabs.com]? It was just released in december, and the new interface and featureset is a drastic improvement over version 4. It's now pretty comparable to Lightroom and Aperture, and it runs natively on Linux as well as OSX and Windows. The developers focused heavily on workflow and speed issues, with an eye towards sensible keyboard shortcuts.

I'm not an employee, just a happy customer, even if I do get the evil eye from fellow nerds whenever I fire up a $200 closed-source app on my Slackware machine. :)

Re:Digikam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815640)

I will soon be buying bibble 5. Its the best RAW processing software available for linux.

Whoever mentioned digikam has never done any RAW processing. it doesnt process RAW files - it just converts them. All processing is done on the converted file, so it doesn't compare to proper RAW conversion software such as Bibble, Lightroom, Capture One, Nikon Capture NX2, ViewNX etc.

Nikon Capture NX2 is also very good...but unfortunately it runs only on windows and my photo library is on linux. Should I move it all over to windows (NTFS) ? well I upgraded my PC recently (m/b, cpu, ram, v/card). Linux started up on the new hardware without a hitch. Windows (7) had to be completely reinstalled (which means I lose all my settings). Easy choice really. I'm sure there would've been ways to get windows working again, but I dont have that long.

Re:Digikam (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816696)

Actually it would have cost you $20 and 20 minutes [geek.com] to keep all your Windows settings while upgrading to Windows 7, 32 or 64 bit. I used it a couple of times when Windows 7 first came out for clients going from XP to Windows 7 (The Vista clients just want to forget Vista ever existed, thanks) and it was fast and easy. Oh and it will let you upgrade from as far back as Win2K to Windows 7.

Which, as you should know if you have used Windows for any length of time, is par for the course. You pretty much need third party tools for most tasks, because the default tools suck.

Only? (5, Informative)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815006)

What about rawstudio [rawstudio.org] and ufraw [sourceforge.net]? I have used all three and I can say that while I like the features that rawtherapee has I like it the least overall. Everything is so slow that working on a RAW image takes forever. Rawstudio has the least amount of features but is very fast and the SVN version has added a few very important features. It is currently my favorite. UFRaw is nice but the interface isn't as clean as rawstudio and there is no batch processing. Every image has to be opened separately.

Re:Only? (2, Informative)

tpwch (748980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815086)

Thats not entirely accurate. Ufraw has for a long time included a batch tool called ufraw-batch. Try running that command it if you have ufraw installed and see for yourself. The idea is that you process one image in the series in the normal ufraw gui and save the changes you made as a template to a config file (thats what that button in the ufraw gui is for). Then you have ufraw-batch load that config and process as many pictures as you like. I tried rawstudio, but it kept crashing for me. Been using ufraw for two years, and it works great here. I don't think the UI is confusing.

Its command-line only, thats probably why you missed.

Re:Only? (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815780)

I tried rawstudio, but it kept crashing for me. Been using ufraw for two years, and it works great here. I don't think the UI is confusing.

Both ufraw and rawstudio seem generally usable to me. The annoying thing is that while ufraw has a great denoise tool (basically one parameter, and always seems to do a great job), it has no sharpening tool, and while rawstudio has a great sharpening tool, it has no denoising tool!!

Even more odd is that as I understand it, dcraw -- the underlying library both apps use -- is actually where ufraw gets its great denoise from, so it seems a bit peculiar that rawstudio doesn't use it...

[Overall, ufraw seems a bit nicer to me -- it has a lot of very well integrated tweaking knobs that do a good job without being overwhelming -- but rawstudio has more straightforward handling of multiple images, and that great sharpening...]

Re:Only? (1)

beaviz (314065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816800)

Even more odd is that as I understand it, dcraw -- the underlying library both apps use -- is actually where ufraw gets its great denoise from, so it seems a bit peculiar that rawstudio doesn't use it...

This is where UFRaw and Rawstudio is very different. UFRaw uses dcraw for almost everything. Rawstudio only uses dcraw for loading bayer image data.

By the way. Current Rawstudio development tree has both sharpen and denoise. And LOTS of other goodies.

Re:Only? (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816078)

Ufraw has for a long time included a batch tool called ufraw-batch. Try running that command it if you have ufraw installed and see for yourself.

This functionality is also available in a pretty nice GUI fashion via an f-spot extension [f-spot.org]. Works very well for me.

Re:Only? (1)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816276)

Actually Digikam [digikam.org] is currently the leading open source raw conversion utility IMHO. My wife is a photographer (does some pay work but mostly play), and she prefers Digikam to lightroom hands down, and uses it all the time. (yes she owns lightroom and doesn't use it)

The only free program for processing RAW? (1)

yankpop (931224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815032)

What does it do that puts it in a different category than Rawstudio or UFRaw?

yp.

Obviously... (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815174)

It doesn't say it's the only one, it says it's the only usable one.

As any True Scotsman could tell you, that's a highly significant difference.

(seriously though, I'm a die-hard UFRaw user - it does everything I need it to, although it is a little slow... I've never tried RAWStudio, and I can't as it doesn't support my camera.)

RAW conversion for GIMP? (4, Informative)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815046)

Great news. For those who don't know, a digital camera's sensor is actually a monochrome sensor. It is not a true color sensor (except for Sigma cameras). Each seperate sensor cell (sensel) has a colored filter placed over it. So the color is actually calculated by compariing each sensel's value with the adjacent sensels. Thus the demosaic process is very important.

All digital cameras have a built-in processor that processes the raw data the creates a JPEG file. But the JPEG file has less data (8-bit vs. 12 to 14 bit RAW) and suffers when heavy post processing is applied. Thus most pros shoot in raw, as you can image PhotoShop, Lightroom, Aperture and others can do a much better job than the built-in processor.

The availability of a RAW converter for Linux is a big deal. Without it, Linux is very limited it its usefulness to photographers.

Might GIMP soon include RAW conversion? I sure hope so.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (4, Informative)

yankpop (931224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815094)

Might GIMP soon include RAW conversion? I sure hope so.

It already does, via UFRaw and Rawstudio, and maybe others.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815536)

Thank you. It's unbelievable that so called professional and serious amateur photographers who also are familiar with linux can not know one single application capable of handling raw format, when they have been available in one form or the other for quite some time.

GIMP plugins not well known to photographers (1)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816344)

Unbelievable? You don't know many photographers, I take it. Open source is nearly invisible to that group.

Most of the attention is focused on Photoshop, followed by LightRoom and Aperture. The OEM products (like Nikon's Capture NX) fit into the also-ran category, with all the other products finding it hard to gain any attention at all.

I run Linux and BSD servers, yet I had no idea GIMP had RAW plugins. I only use GIMP (actually GimpShop) on occasion. But professional photographers (and I am one) need a complete workflow package, and that doesn't exist on Linux (as far as I know). That includes RAW conversion, editing, asset management, and print control and accounting. There's a reason most pros use Macs for that stuff. When you pay US$1000 for a set of ink cartridges and by paper in 100 ft rolls, you look for ways to control your costs and account for product usage.

But I want to be able to point beginners at open source software, and was hoping GIMP would be able to support RAW conversion. Frankly, I wasn't paying much attention to where it all stood, so the responses have been helpful.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816358)

My hope is that RAW conversion is included with the base package. I've suggested GIMP for beginners on a budget, then watched them dump it because it couldn't read RAW. Not everyone knows how to look for plug-ins, or even know plug-ins exist.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

tpwch (748980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815108)

If you read some of the other comments you'll see that linux has had multiple free software raw-processing programs for many years. There are at least two plugins for gimp, one for dcraw and one for ufraw. And there are professional photographers that use them.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815188)

Might GIMP soon include RAW conversion? I sure hope so.

You mean a version besides UFRaw plugin that has been out for 5 years? Or do you mean built-in?

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815196)

Thanks for this post! I read the web page, and part of the forums and still never understood that the goddamned program was good for. This is all too common in open source.

Folks- if you're going to put your code out there, then tell the world what the hell it does and what it's good for- not that you've improved the frobulation, and rejiggered the comblastictor.

grumpy

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816836)

Folks- if you're going to put your code out there, then tell the world what the hell it does and what it's good for- not that you've improved the frobulation, and rejiggered the comblastictor.

But this new rejiggerment is ALPHABETSOUP-2010 comblastictor(TM) compatible!

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (5, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815230)

Thus most pros shoot in raw, as you can image PhotoShop, Lightroom, Aperture and others can do a much better job than the built-in processor.

IMO, the conversion from RAW -> JPEG being done better than on the camera chip is by far the least compelling reason to shoot RAW, especially with Canons (where the on-camera processor already does a really job). 99% of people would never be able to tell the difference between the two processing options, even on a properly calibrated screen.

The real reason to shoot RAW is the world of post-processing options that shooting RAW presents you. Because of the 12 bits of color depth you have more latitude with playing with the exposure controls; if you make sure that you don't overexpose anything (i.e. you "expose for the highlights") you can compress the dynamic range a bit to bring out more detail in the dark areas. Because white balance hasn't been applied yet, you can change white balance post-processing losslessly. (There's software that will give you white-balance controls over JPEG pictures in a similar manner, but it's lossy.)

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (3, Interesting)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816402)

The real reason to shoot RAW is the world of post-processing options that shooting RAW presents you. Because of the 12 bits of color depth you have more latitude with playing with the exposure controls; if you make sure that you don't overexpose anything (i.e. you "expose for the highlights") you can compress the dynamic range a bit to bring out more detail in the dark areas. Because white balance hasn't been applied yet, you can change white balance post-processing losslessly. (There's software that will give you white-balance controls over JPEG pictures in a similar manner, but it's lossy.)

Agreed. You've added more detail than I did, when I said "the JPEG file has less data (8-bit vs. 12 to 14 bit RAW) and suffers when heavy post processing is applied."

I have a habit of describing how a watch works when people simply want to know the time. Overcompensating, I left out lots of detail. Perhaps I oversimplified.

But 16-bit-per-pixel (actually 3x16bpp=48bpp) editing is not lossless. Generally the loss of quality is not visible, but not in all cases. But as you point out, its WAY better then 24bit (3x8bit) JPEGs.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815232)

Might GIMP soon include RAW conversion? I sure hope so.

Only ever through import plugins that do the colour-space downsampling before giving GIMP the 24-bit colour bitmap data. GIMP's whole architecture is limited to 8-bit per channel, and would take a massive rewrite to support anything higher.

Unfortunately, that means it'll never be suitable for pro photographic work, as you often don't want to do the downsampling until after you've made other changes.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (2, Informative)

yankpop (931224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815482)

Only ever through import plugins that do the colour-space downsampling before giving GIMP the 24-bit colour bitmap data. GIMP's whole architecture is limited to 8-bit per channel, and would take a massive rewrite to support anything higher.

The massive rewrite is in progress, and 12 (or 16) bits per channel will be fully supported with version 3.0. The current development version is 2.7, with a release version of 2.8 on the (distant) horizon. So, real soon now...

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815864)

... and it looks like the new GEGL core is based on floating-point operators, so it would seem simple to support floating-point image formats (e.g., OpenEXR) as well!

...drool...

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815580)

rewrite is being done. When GEGL library taking care of non-destructive editing is mature and fully integrated, 16bit channels will be there too. Some stuff in GIMP already works with GEGL, but advanced color spaces should be implemented in v2.8, which is the next stable version after the current 2.6.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (2, Funny)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815418)

Am I only the one who understood the summary to mean that he lacked interest in like image processing? And that the submitter/slashdot editor must have been like a valley girl?

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816772)

Am I only the one who understood the summary to mean that he lacked interest in like image processing? And that the submitter/slashdot editor must have been like a valley girl?

I didn't get that, but I was wondering why FOSS graphics software has such brutal and disgusting names. First "The Gimp" and now an application name gloating about having raped someone until they were raw?? Ewwww.

It's a frontend to dcraw (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815452)

Raw Therapee is a frontend to DCraw, which has been around for at least 5 years.

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

The challenge isn't demosaicing the images, nor is there a need for the user to have control over it, assuming it works properly. It's reading the file format; Nikon encrypts theirs, and everyone else changes their formats seemingly with every new model/model year. Makes for an annoying moving target for most of the programs which support raw images, and the entire reason Adobe created an open raw image format, which few companies have moved to support.

Re:It's a frontend to dcraw (1)

beaviz (314065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816814)

The challenge isn't demosaicing the images, nor is there a need for the user to have control over it, assuming it works properly. It's reading the file format; Nikon encrypts theirs, and everyone else changes their formats seemingly with every new model/model year.

Nikon only encrypts very specific metadata. As for other manufacturers, often it's just minor tweaks to support new camera features. Nothing you can't keep up with.

Re:RAW conversion for GIMP? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816746)

Great news. For those who don't know, a digital camera's sensor is actually a monochrome sensor. It is not a true color sensor (except for Sigma cameras). Each seperate sensor cell (sensel) has a colored filter placed over it.

How is it a monochrome sensor if it has colored filters to sense different colors? Don't those filters turn it into a color sensor?

Free as in 'Freedom' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815064)

Stallman's version is a proper noun because it's nothing like the dictionary definition.

Developer in for a shock (0, Flamebait)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815264)

License changes:

I decided to change the license to GPL and thus offer the source code to the open source community. This does not mean that I stop developing RawTherapee. I will invest as much time into the development as till now. I have three motivations for this decision: first, I love playing with image processing algorithms but I'm not keen on GUI development. Recently a huge amount of work had to be invested to develop a usable GUI and I had no time left to play with new algorithms. I hope to involve some new developers who help me to maintain and enhance the GUI. The second reason of licence change was that I am very frustrated by the huge amount of bug reports I can not reproduce (believe it or not, RT is stable on my PC). I hope that with the open source model some talented users can identify the problems and fix the bugs. The third (but maybe the most important) reason of switching to GPL is that our baby reached the age (10 month old) when he needs his father more and more. I dont want to disappoint him :). With more developers involved the development process will hopefully more smooth and wont stop when I am busy.

Such naivety!

1. Author is very lucky he's had so much time on his hands up to the 10 month mark with his son. I've had very little time to myself since mine was born (almost 18 months). I think he's about to learn how much time and effort raising a child takes.

2. I can't believe the author of such a mature and well known product has come up with the line "believe it or not, RT is stable on my PC". Or that he believes the first thing any other programmer is going to want to do is reproduce bugs they aren't experiencing themselves. Epic fail.

Re:Developer in for a shock (0)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815790)

How exactly can this every be construed as flamebait? People need to understand the difference between a flame and an observation or argument they don't like.

Re:Developer in for a shock (1)

madpansy (1410973) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816676)

Perhaps it's the way you decided to criticize him. Especially considering that in the text you quoted he shows he's nothing but naive when he states his baby, "needs his father more and more." You also don't realize that opening the source allows people who are experiencing problems to sift through the code and fix it for themselves.

Re:Developer in for a shock (2, Insightful)

th3rmite (938737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816084)

Epic fail? This guy GPLs his software and you say "Epic fail"? I don't think it should matter what his reasons are, we should be happy that a formerly closed source application has embraced open source.

Re:Developer in for a shock (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816192)

You need to re-read his words again. The baby *is* the software project. The baby has just been GPL'd. His words make that pretty clear.

The third (but maybe the most important) reason of switching to GPL is that our baby reached the age (10 month old) when he needs his father more and more. I dont want to disappoint him :). With more developers involved the development process will hopefully more smooth and wont stop when I am busy.

Uppercase "raw"??? (1)

5pp000 (873881) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815334)

Why do people persist in uppercasing "raw" as if it were an acronym??? I suppose if you wanted to be sure people realized you were using a technical term, you could capitalize it: "The file is in Raw Format". But uppercase???

Re:Uppercase "raw"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815432)

It's one convention for any term that can be expected to be seen as a file extension.

If you found a file extension that was a contraction of two words, then it would probably be written in all capital letters. For example:

Foo Corp's imaging program makes '.foo files', which would also be referred to as 'FOO files'.

If they made .ffo (Foo Format files), they'd also be known as 'FOF files', not 'FFo files'.

Re:Uppercase "raw"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815492)

Please excuse me, I meant to say: FFO files, not FFo files.

Re:Uppercase "raw"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815462)

Strange. People do this with MAC too, of the Apple variety. I don't get it.

Re:Uppercase "raw"??? (1)

5pp000 (873881) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815768)

Yes, I've seen that. (But then there's the phrase "MAC address", where it stands for Media Access Control.)

Come to think of it, I see "SPAM" a lot these days as well.

RAW = Really Awkward Workflow (2, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815704)

Why do people persist in uppercasing "raw" as if it were an acronym???

It is an acronymn. RAW = Really Awkward Workflow ;-)

Actually when I use an SLR I almost strictly shoot RAW these days, because while it can be a pain it's worth it.

Re:Uppercase "raw"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816238)

Because it's a file format. Some people do 'PDF', others go '.pdf' and still others '.PDF'. This is common practice whether the file format/extension is an acronym, an initialism, or just a string of letters. For example, see 'IMG file' in all kinds of open source documentation. People are accustomed to seeing JPG (not strictly an acronym--that would be JPEG), PNG, TIFF, BMP (again, not an acronym), DOC (not an acronym), etc.

Instead of an insipid sentence ("this file is in raw format"), you could just say "RAW file" and it would be quite clear to everyone what you meant. Moreover, in this particular case, "raw file" and "raw file" presents a disambiguation issue--do you mean the "raw file" as opposed to e.g. a finished or composited file or "raw file" as opposed to a JPEG? While personally I prefer to say '.raw', RAW is just as effective.

What's more curious is why you chose to capitalize "format" in a post alleging curious capitalization.

Re:Uppercase "raw"??? (2, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816592)

We persist because every similar word is also capitalized (even though most of them actually are acronyms) so it seems sensible to stay within conventions.

File formats are all capitalized:
TIFF
EXR
PNG
JPG
DPX
etc...

Colorspaces and gamma definitions are also often all caps as well:
sRGB
LOG
LIN

Since RGB is all caps it's just common practice to use RAW in all caps to make the distinction that you're referring to a bayer pattern image and not the raw unprocessed data.

I SEE THE BUZZARDS CIRCLING OVERHEAD !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815390)

The carcass must be pretty johnny rotten if not even the scavengers want some billy squire.

Fotoxxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815520)

don't forget Fotoxx, frequently updated
http://kornelix.squarespace.com/fotoxx

Therapee seems to be working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30815558)

for the developer, he seems to be completely cured of the idea that he can become rich writing closed source software. I just hope he's not suffering from MoWiGRiQiS (Monty Widenius Get Rich Quick Syndrome) because then we'd have to make rawhide out of his sorry ass.

Plug for Bibblepro (4, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30815814)

Bibblepro is a great commercial RAW converter that runs quite well on Linux. I've been using it for several years and really like both the job it does and the options it gives for structuring your workflow.

Not to detract from this new open source tool (which I look forward to trying out), but I like to point out that there is at least one really high quality tool for Linux users already.

Ufraw *does* exist (1)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816286)

The only (as far as I know) usable and free (as in beer) program for processing RAW photos outside Windows or OS X [..]

You might dislike the workflow of Ufraw, but there is no question about it being usable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...