On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:46:49PM -0500, Pat David wrote: > Each of those raw processing tools has a different processing pipeline and > ways to achieve results, so it's no surprise that they would be different > from each other. > > If you're going to use raw files and process them it might be worth some > time learning one of the tools that feels best for you in a little more > detail. > > I can't really speak to your specific problem without more examples and > perhaps a raw file to share that we can use to troubleshoot things for > you. Both of those projects do have forums over at: > https://discuss.pixls.us/rawtherapee > https://discuss.pixls.us/darktable > Hi Pat,
I'm afraid top-posting always does my head in so I'll reply below my original post ['''] > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list < > gimp-user-list@gnome.org> wrote: > > > > > > Alternatively, the forked ufraw at github (but not nufraw) should > > still build. But you would then need to create png files (16-bit > > for preference) from ufraw and open those in gimp. Tiff files might > > also work, but I'm wary of those (in the past, parts have not been > > understood - Thousands of Incompatible File Formats). > > > > It's sad that ufraw is no longer supported, it's a much _easier_ > > build than DT or RT, and I found that both of those had far too many > > things to learn. > > For the OP your suggestion is sensible. For me, photo editing is something I would like to return to - but these days I have very little time for it. Mostly, I'm trying to build current released versions of existing software and keep up to date with changed dependencies. So in practice all I'm doing is to open an image and prove I can still use it in gimp. After spending time trying to adapt nufraw to the libexif changes, I've given up on that package (fixing it is outwith my abilities) and reverted to ufraw which is still usable although not as a plugin. When I first had troubles with getting ufraw to work in gimp-2.9 (so, a little over 2 years ago) I got pointed to nufraw which at that time was usable as the plugin. But I also found some time to explore the dependencies of both RT and DT. I build from source (BLFS) so all this was new to me. My notes show that I started with RT, and for my use (open a raw file, adjust the exposure until I was happy that I had a "more useful" base exposure, import to gimp, repeat for ± 2 stops (typically) for my three-exposures approach) I found it semi-usable but really horrible after the simplicity of ufraw as a plugin (adjust exposure, 'save'). For RT, at that time the only additional deps I needed were the float variantof fftw3 (I suspect I now need that anyway for the g'mic plugin) and libiptcdata), so given enough time I guess I could adapt. Actually, looking at my git log I see that DT (2.2.5 at that time) didn't produce a gimp plugin when I built it, so what I actually ended up using was PhotoFlow (vips, pugixml, PF, PhFGimp). But again I found it awkward. Summary: ufraw is much easier for those of us who only occasionally dabble on the shores of processing raw images. Regards, ĸen -- thread 'main' panicked at 'giraffe', /tmp/rustc-1.32.0-src/src/test/run-fail/while-panic.rs:17:13 _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
