DarkTable ???

[dnperfors]

After having used Aftershot Pro (and before that Bibble) I started using DarkTable some time ago. I like it because of the price, but since I am a programmer myself, I don’t mind getting my hands dirty to solve problems (although I didn’t need it yet).
DT can do everything I need when I edit my photo’s, which isn’t much, but it takes some time to getting used to, especially because it doesn’t touch the original files, not even when you remove the pictures from your library (although I believe it is possible). For an FOSS project the documentation is rather good.
But I have to be honest, I didn’t open DT for at least 3 months, probably more...

[Manfred M]

After having used Aftershot Pro (and before that Bibble) I started using DarkTable some time ago. I like it because of the price, but since I am a programmer myself, I don’t mind getting my hands dirty to solve problems (although I didn’t need it yet).
DT can do everything I need when I edit my photo’s, which isn’t much, but it takes some time to getting used to, especially because it doesn’t touch the original files, not even when you remove the pictures from your library (although I believe it is possible).

That is typical behaviour of any raw convertor. Data in a raw file is not an image and the raw convertor has to build one from the data, so the original data is never touched because the output of these tools is an image file, whether it is some proprietary format, like Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom default to or a TIFF, bitmap or JPEG.

For an FOSS project the documentation is rather good.

That, in my view, is one of the main failings of the FOSS products. People are so busy coding and testing they forget about the end users when it comes to documentation and training materials. If this is viewed as being "well documented", then the FOSS community certainly has a long way to go.

This issue is not just a FOSS issue, but shared by many products put out by small, independent developers of commercial software. Unfortunately, my experience with the software industry in general is that people who like writing software hate documenting it, but that is something they are forced to do. Developing user manuals and training materials is something they generally do poorly, if at all.

[dnperfors]

That is typical behaviour of any raw convertor. Data in a raw file is not an image and the raw convertor has to build one from the data, so the original data is never touched because the output of these tools is an image file, whether it is some proprietary format, like Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom default to or a TIFF, bitmap or JPEG.

I know that manfred, I was only talking about the removal of files, and not the editing

That, in my view, is one of the main failings of the FOSS products. People are so busy coding and testing they forget about the end users when it comes to documentation and training materials. If this is viewed as being "well documented", then the FOSS community certainly has a long way to go.

This issue is not just a FOSS issue, but shared by many products put out by small, independent developers of commercial software. Unfortunately, my experience with the software industry in general is that people who like writing software hate documenting it, but that is something they are forced to do. Developing user manuals and training materials is something they generally do poorly, if at all.

I completely share this opinion, and I know from experience that programmers tend to be not very good in writing non technical documentation and training material. We (the programmers) need people who are good in that area to help us, while most companies have a budget to hire those people.
What I have seen in the documentation is that at least most if not all options of DT are described, while other projects don’t even bother doing that.

[xpatUSA]

I completely share this opinion, and I know from experience that programmers tend to be not very good in writing non technical documentation and training material. We (the programmers) need people who are good in that area to help us, while most companies have a budget to hire those people.
What I have seen in the documentation is that at least most if not all options of DT are described, while other projects don’t even bother doing that.

On the other hand, there is a wealth of user groups and cognoscenti on the web - the sum of which probably exceeds the content of any specific application's manual.

[JBW]

Personally, I have several editors; here are three of them which I do indeed use for different purposes:

FastStone Viewer
RawTherapee V5.5
The GIMP, both V2.8 and 2.9

Seems some people missed the memo about 'horses for courses'. I just contacted Capture 1 tech support about the right pixel based editor to compliment their software or indeed the need for added software.
Brian

[revi]

(...)
This issue is not just a FOSS issue, but shared by many products put out by small, independent developers of commercial software. Unfortunately, my experience with the software industry in general is that people who like writing software hate documenting it, but that is something they are forced to do. Developing user manuals and training materials is something they generally do poorly, if at all.

It's also a different skill, so it's not too surprising that developers aren't good at writing (end-user) documentation. I'm pretty sure that Adobe c.s. have dedicated staff to write the documentation they provide.

[odds]

On the other hand, there is a wealth of user groups and cognoscenti on the web - the sum of which probably exceeds the content of any specific application's manual.

Indeed. Repeating the old jungle word that used to be the basis of the free and open source community, is apparently in place: Don't complain. Fix it, and share!

That included writing program code, documentation, translations, keeping sites running and up to date and everything else. Users that can not contribute in practical ways, can possibly donate a few bucks to their favorite project(s). Users not able (or willing) to contribute in any way or form, are still very welcome to use the products with all the freedom that comes with them. General negativity like "not user friendly" may however; not lead to changes.

--
Odd S.

[Carusoswi]

Manfred M:

I do try to look at things a bit more objectively than you might believe.

Perhaps, but you are not posting objectively which is why you were called out on your own bias. Just because someone expresses confidence in or compliments an open source application does not mean they are biased towards open source. Why are you bashing open source?

If you want to get to a higher level in your work, then you should consider going to the next step. One highly regarded fine art photographer once told me that the difference between a good image and a great image is all about handling the local (small) details. If one looks at the works of the great photographers of the past; for instance Ansel Adams, that is exactly how he worked by spending hours and hours burning and dodging the local details. Parametric editors don't have the tools to do this well; this is the realm of pixel based editors with adjustment layers, blending modes and layer masks.

As a user of C1, you should realize that the more favored approach these days is to make as many adjustments as possible working from the RAW file, reserving the pixel editor such as PS only for those things a RAW editor cannot do, because PS cannot operate on RAW files. Editing from RAW lets you work using all of the data from your camera's sensor.


That, in my view, is one of the main failings of the FOSS products. People are so busy coding and testing they forget about the end users when it comes to documentation and training materials. If this is viewed as being "well documented", then the FOSS community certainly has a long way to go.

The DT project maintains a very comprehensive user manual. Have you read it? There are also users who have developed extensive tutorial series that will take you from novice to expert if you care to work through them. The same is true of the GIMP pixel editor.

The notion that you get what you pay for is also faulty. As someone with such fantastic professional credentials, I assume that you are aware that proprietary applications freely borrow from and adapt innovations introduced in the open source community, yes? For example, the ‘content aware’ feature in Adobe PS was actually available in GIMP before it was incorporated into PS.

You question why someone who has Affinity would want to invest (time only) in an open source application. The answer, of course, is curiosity to see and learn other applications that may be available. You and I both share that curiosity, else, why would we be conversant with multiple photo manipulation applications?

Why do you bash open source?

You do a disservice to those looking to broaden their knowledge. The only loss exposure one exploring open source software faces is the time spent exploring. One is not limited to a 30-day trial, there is no paid subscription, purchase, or upgrade cost, and, whether you will admit it or not, applications like darktable and GIMP are mature and highly developed. For my money, GIMP for free is far better than Photo Shop Essentials (I have PSE also, but never use it). IMO, darktable, as a RAW editor, far surpasses Lightroom, but I would never tell someone they are wasting their time and/or money if they choose Lightroom.

WHY ARE YOU SO INTENT UPON BASHING OPEN SOURCE?

Caruso

[Manfred M]

Perhaps, but you are not posting objectively which is why you were called out on your own bias. Just because someone expresses confidence in or compliments an open source application does not mean they are biased towards open source. Why are you bashing open source?

First of all I am not bashing open source, I am merely commenting on the constraints that someone who is just starting out in post-processing is going to face in trying to learn the software. User support is much more than a good manual and some tutorials, it's the user community that has been built around the products and the support they can offer.

The same issue exists with paid for software, especially when it comes out of relatively small companies. Try to find a decent sized user group with Corel's Paint Shop Pro, Serif Affnity or ACDSee or good online material for these products. Fortunately Affinity is close enough to Photoshop that I can usually figure things out.

Just as an aside, I do use a number of open source software resources, just not photographic ones.

As a user of C1, you should realize that the more favored approach these days is to make as many adjustments as possible working from the RAW file, reserving the pixel editor such as PS only for those things a RAW editor cannot do, because PS cannot operate on RAW files.

Photography is a very broad subject area and the workflow you are writing about is very popular in the retail side of photography; i.e. portraiture, wedding photography, etc. That is definitely not the case when it comes to high end commercial or fine art photography.

If I do a "portrait shoot" in a studio with planned web output, I can often do virtually 100% of the work in C1 or Lightroom. If I want to create a large high end print, it's 90% Photoshop.

Editing from RAW lets you work using all of the data from your camera's sensor.

That argument is absolutely correct, but also rather meaningless. Most people work on a sRGB screen and the standard for displaying on the web is that colour space, so only 35% of the data that your camera's sensor could capture can be seen. If you are using a wide gamut screen (Adobe RGB compliant) you are up to about 67% of the colours your camera can capture. The only way to get beyond that is if you are printing on a pro photo printer with an extended gamut ink set. I am assuming the user is running in 16-bit.

That being said, if one exports the files from either Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom into Photoshop as a SmartObject, all those colours are still available. A colour space has to be assigned (ProPhoto goes to 90% of what a camera theoretically can record) and a white balance gets baked in. So in practice this is not a real constraint. In fact, if I do my raw conversion well I never run into an issue on a well exposed image.

The DT project maintains a very comprehensive user manual. Have you read it? There are also users who have developed extensive tutorial series that will take you from novice to expert if you care to work through them. The same is true of the GIMP pixel editor.

As I stated before, those are entry stakes to get in the game. Those two things alone are not nearly enough for me to invest my time and effort in learning the products. I know a number of people that started off using GIMP (including me) and gave up because they were not getting the results they wanted.

The notion that you get what you pay for is also faulty. As someone with such fantastic professional credentials, I assume that you are aware that proprietary applications freely borrow from and adapt innovations introduced in the open source community, yes? For example, the ‘content aware’ feature in Adobe PS was actually available in GIMP before it was incorporated into PS.

Big companies like Adobe and Microsoft rarely innovate. The keep their eyes open and buy or license products someone else has come up with and then integrate them into their own products. The integrated product that does so many things well is what the end user is after.

If first to market was the only criterion for success we would still be using the latest Palm Pilot, Blackberry phone and Creative Labs media players. People go for what is best value for them and don't really care who was first to market.

If I include the time and effort that it takes to master this type of software, the retail price is not a major factor. If FOSS were as good as its advocates claim, then most everyone would be using it. Apache Web Server is an excellent example of this; it is very successful and open source. LibreOffice are in wide use but it has a small market share versus MS Office. GIMP and DarkTable are hardly in the same class...

You question why someone who has Affinity would want to invest (time only) in an open source application. The answer, of course, is curiosity to see and learn other applications that may be available. You and I both share that curiosity, else, why would we be conversant with multiple photo manipulation applications?

Learning is definitely important and exploring different approaches is as well. I've worked with GIMP and tried out DarkTable. Neither offered a compelling reason to stick with them and for the longest time GIMP was 8-bit (looks like that finally changed last year) whereas Photoshop supported 16-bit for a very long time.

The reason I use three convertors is:

1. ACR / Lightroom support SmartObjects which are a key element of a non-destructive workflow. Integration with Photoshop is seamless.

2. Capture One - I shoot tethered in the studio and the tethered capture side of C1 works a lot better than Lightroom does (much mores stable, but then it started life as a tool for tethered capture of Phase One backs with the other functions coming later).

The other strength is that it uses ICC profiles throughout its entire workflow rather than Adobe's internal (proprietary) approach. The colour engine seems to be a bit better than the Adobe one. The user interface does take some time to master.

3. DxO PhotoLab - excellent camera / lens profiles and excellent noise reduction . Fairly simple to use but does not natively support ProPhoto RGB.

If there is a compelling reason for me to learn another piece of software, I would not hesitate doing so. That means it would have to do something better than the software I am using now.

Why do you bash open source?

I don't, but I do feel it is likely not the best solution for most photographers. Many photographers come from a art versus a technical background, so want to use something that something that a less technical person will be comfortable with.

The problem I have with open source advocates is that they often are so entrenched with their view that open source is the best thing going and get really upset with people who don't agree with them and tend to overlook the little and annoying issues with the software (and frankly that can be said about any software, not just open source).

You do a disservice to those looking to broaden their knowledge. The only loss exposure one exploring open source software faces is the time spent exploring. One is not limited to a 30-day trial, there is no paid subscription, purchase, or upgrade cost, and, whether you will admit it or not, applications like darktable and GIMP are mature and highly developed. For my money, GIMP for free is far better than Photo Shop Essentials (I have PSE also, but never use it). IMO, darktable, as a RAW editor, far surpasses Lightroom, but I would never tell someone they are wasting their time and/or money if they choose Lightroom.

WHY ARE YOU SO INTENT UPON BASHING OPEN SOURCE?

Why are you so sensitive if someone suggests that certain commercially available software is likely a better choice for most photographers?


My real issue is that every time I see some top notch photographic work or work with top notch photographers, their tools of choice is Photoshop and generally one of the three raw processors that I mentioned.

Why don't you some your really well done images with a DarkTable -> GIMP workflow and you might have a chance of convincing me. I have seen some very good work from people that use FOSS in photography, but not all that often. Most of the stuff that I see comes from commercial software. I have seen some very good work coming out of the C1 -> Photoshop workflow and that is one reason I am spending more time with C1 as a raw convertor.

In my case, I spend time using other parts of the Adobe CC Suite of software; Illustrator, Premiere Pro, Audition, Bridge, etc. I don't see a comprehensive suite that would suit my needs for an integrated solution. That is something that likely does not apply to most of the members here.

[Carusoswi]

Manfred:
I am not sensitive if someone suggests that a certain software (commercially or otherwise available) is likely a better choice. The OP seems a beginner, so he/she cannot begin to appreciate the nuances to which you refer that come into play for "high end" commercial work. To what qualitative photographic criteria do you refer that would be meaningful for the OP as he/she begins his/her photo editing journey?

Not that you would be interested, but if you spent more time perusing sites that feature work completed using open source tools, you would find fine examples of very high quality work. Because Adobe (or other big software vendors) enjoy huge market share is no reason to knock other offerings, and it is that to which I am sensitive. I find that most amateur photographers come from all walks of life, not necessarily art backgrounds, nor do I share your opinion that artists will be at some sort of disadvantage if they tackle some technical task. Furthermore, I do not see where darktable or GIMP are more technical than the Adobe or other proprietary offerings.

You are free to your own opinions and are certainly free to express them here or on other fora. I will continue to voice my opinion that you are bashing open source offerings unfairly.

I do not need to post examples of my work to prove my point about any software, as my work would be no more definitive of the comparative capabilities of open source vs proprietary software than yours or anyone else's.

In my opinion, there is no right or wrong with respect to tool choices. Use that with which you are comfortable in getting the results for which you strive. OTOH, I do tend to stick up for open source because it is regularly subjected to arbitrary bashing such as yours.

Have a great day.

Caruso

[Manfred M]

Generally when someone asks about editing software, the first thing I will suggest is that they stick with the software that shipped with their camera as it generally does a lot of the basics that a person needs at the beginning. In the case of Sony (and now FujiFilm, I believe) this is C1, albeit a slightly crippled version but it does have a relatively inexpensive upgrade path.

If that is not what they want to hear I go into some of the online tools and give them the advantages and disadvantages of using those (no raw convertor, slow if one has limited bandwidth) and then talk about both the FOSS route and the commercial software route and give examples. At that point I do mention some of the things I wrote about in this thread regarding the user community. If someone wants help, it is a lot easier to get training and support from the Adobe community simply because it is so large.

From a graphics software standpoint, a lot of software has been cross-ported and now runs on both Apple and Windows platforms. The graphics arts community has been on Apple hardware and software for a very long time. Linux users are going to be restricted to FOSS but that has never been the platform the mainstream graphics arts community has worked in.

I run several pieces of FOSS software, so I definitely don't "bash FOSS" but do suggest that people approach it with their eyes wide open when it comes to learning it and support. For most users this is likely to be some form of commercial software.

[xpatUSA]

I liken Adobe v. the rest to Microsoft v. the rest, both being the elephants in their respective rooms.

It warms me to the cockles of my heart to see the incredible nose-dive of Internet Explorer v. the rest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_...f_web_browsers

Makes me wonder if there is similar data re "market share" of editors - not that that indicates which is "best" I realize, being the proud owner of outsider cameras ...

[Manfred M]

I liken Adobe v. the rest to Microsoft v. the rest, both being the elephants in their respective rooms.

It warms me to the cockles of my heart to see the incredible nose-dive of Internet Explorer v. the rest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_...f_web_browsers

Makes me wonder if there is similar data re "market share" of editors - not that that indicates which is "best" I realize, being the proud owner of outsider cameras ...

Remember Netscape, Lotus 123, WordPerfect and dBase? What surprises me is how resilient Adobe products have been over the decades. There is no real competition, much like MS Office for the business world. The two big gorillas in the room with no real competition.