![]() ![]() I think trying to get close to the SOOC JPEG in terms of colour and contrast is a good approach to learning the software actually - gives you a base interpretation to work to. You haven't said why you are thinking of switching - I presume you have some reasons - would be helpful to know. A great way to learn either RT, dt, or both.Īre you thinking of switching from RT to DT or the other way round? Responders will post their sidecar files for others to inspect and regard their processing. One thing done there is a category of thread called PlayRaw a person posts a raw file and their JPEG interpretation, and others download the raw to see what they can do with it. The developers of both softwares as well as a good number of users hang out at. It's not perfect, but works well to provide a starting point for further adjustment. What it does it to take the JPEG embedded in the raw file and uses it to develop a tone curve for the raw data that approximates the tone curve used by the camera to make the JPEG. If producing renders close to your camera's JPEG output is important, RawTherapee has a tool worth considering: Auto-Matched Tone Curve. If you are looking for more from your images, may I recommend you consider and try one or both of these to find a solution to your shots. DT was developed by pro photographers for photographers. 1 of DT was considered very comparable to them, but ver. I have researched for comparisons to the pay to play software brands, and have found that ver. I like it, it works well and is easier I believe to use, though it lacks features offered by DT. My sister uses M$, so I talked her into trying RT, so I started working with it to help her get started. DT is Linux or Mac only, though they have offered it to any M$ programmer who was willing to make a version and support it, none have. After I got the basic idea of of it, then upgraded to Ver 2.x with the improvement it had. 1.x of DT as its manual was smaller and I figured I could read it and push my learning curve and there were a lot of YouTube tutorials for ver 1. My favorite OS is Linux Mint Cinnamon, so I downloaded both Raw Therapee and Dark Table, and started looking at both but gravitated to DT. Being a member of an international photo competition, my shots were liked, but they just lacked the pop that others had, so spent days studying other shots to see what I could learn, And basically decided that the difference was post production which I had not been doing while relying on JPG and simple touch ups, Since I have long since dumped anything having to do with M$ Windows, or being trapped by the "pay to play" scheme of some of the name brand products, I looked to see what was available in open source. ![]() Crossing over to Digital, I tried to apply the same rule, but just wasn't happy with the results. was always taught to do it right at the camera, there would be little if any post production (darkroom) work to be done. I am an old school photographers (second generation, son of a Brooks trained Father) I. I can do the same, but would like to avoid running stuff through wine in Linux. Frustrating until I master the raw editors. I love my camera's jpeg colour rendition, but hate the lack of fine detail. Same here! I do the conversion by the camera brand's own software and do the edits in photoshop. I am aware this is somwhat of a "dark ages" type of working but I like to keep control. If you'd like to duplicate your camera's jpegs, why not use them to begin with and save yourself the trouble? Today's cameras are capable of absolutely gorgeous jpeg output.įYI, I shoot raw-only and convert with just about the simplest raw converter of them all: UFRaw although I do sometimes dabble with RawTherapee, Darktable and Photivo but I always come back to the basics - I like separating the raw conversion from image processing and limiting the conversion to debayering and applying WB and a tone/contrast curve, the rest is done in PP. Darktable is somewhat kinder on memory requirements.Īlso, consider your raw processing to always end up differently from the camera's OOC jpeg and don't try to mimic it - just try to process to a result that you yourself like. Just like a camera switch does not make your shots suddenly better, the switch of a raw converter will not do anything for your jpegs.īoth converters mentioned are very worthy competitors delivering extremely capable results. Seeing your remark above I'd say: stick with the one you are using. Any thoughts?Īlso, where is a good place to learn how to learn either? I can't ever seem to get anything close to what the jpegs are from my camera. Considering switching from one to the other. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |