new to post processing

[jbcollins1957]

I am new to post processing and am finding the learning curve a little steep.I am trying to learn rawtherapee since I am now shooting raw on my camera. What other software could I use to help learn post processing. I have GIMP installed on my computer and find that Davies Media Design has extensive tutorials on using GIMP plus I have a large book that I got for Christmas (GIMP 2.8 for Photographers).Not many tutorials on learning rawtherapee. I figure if I can learn basics in GIMP about post processing then it might make it easier to learn RT. Any suggestions would help. Thanks.

[Manfred M]

Raw Therapee is primarily a raw converter whereas GIMP is a pixel based editor.

Two different tools for two totally different aspects of editing.

The vast majority of the users here do not use GIMP very much and there are a few who are very happy with RawTherapee. There are lots of other products out there; it depends on how much you want to spend (the two pieces of software you are looking at are "free".

If you want to look at a fairly inexpensive "mainstream" product, I would suggest Serif Affinity. Functionality is about 80% of Photoshop used by photographers. It's raw convertor is not my favourite, but is probably more than acceptable if you are starting out. There is a 30 day trial version you might want to try.

[Shadowman]

If you are looking for something free I would suggest FastStone, not many tutorials available but you can find a workflow for editing online that'll provide you with the basic starting points. Cons with FastStone is noise reduction filter very limited, and FS is limited to BMP, JPEG, JPEG 2000, GIF, PNG, PCX, TIFF, WMF, ICO, TGA and camera raw files. For WB, the program either uses settings from camera or does an AWB.

http://faststone.org/

[jbcollins1957]

I currently do have faststone, but I am using it strictly as a photo organize. As far as paid software goes, not an option (not cheap just on a very tight budget).

[jbcollins1957]

Hey, just for fun I tried faststone. Very simple as far as basic editing goes but it just might help me get my feet wet and soften the learning curve.

[rpcrowe]

There is always the old standby in reasonably priced editing programs. Adobe Photoshop Elements. The best thing about Elements is that it is a stepping stone to Photoshop if you would want to travel along that road.

[jbcollins1957]

Looking at “LightZone” as a stepping stone, and as far as editing program I think I will stick with Gimp.

[DanK]

Two different tools for two totally different aspects of editing.

I don't know whether you are far enough along that Manfred's comment above makes sense to you, but it is very important. So at the risk of going too far back toward square zero:

Raw images have to be processed to be viewable. If you take JPEGS in the camera, the camera's computer is applying a predetermined recipe for doing the processing--color rendition, saturation, contrast, sharpening, noise reduction, etc.

Raw file converters were originally designed to render the raw file into a viewable form, but not a great deal beyond that. Over time, some of them have become much more capable as editors. For example, Lightroom and the Adobe Camera Raw engine in Photoshop (the same processing engine) are now quite capable, allowing extensive global and local edits of many kinds. I have numerous prints on the wall that were processed entirely in Lightroom. These are generally "parametric" editors. That is, rather than directly changing pixels in the file, they accumulate a file of edits, and at the end, the apply them all to create a new file. For this reason, parametric edits are reversible.

Programs like Photoshop, Elements, Corel Paint Shop Pro, and, I think, Gimp, are pixel editors, although some have raw converters built in. They are designed to make direct changes to the image file. Even though some raw converters have become fairly powerful editors, the better pixel editors offer much more extensive control.

For that reason, every serious photographer I know uses a combination of a raw processor and a pixel editor. Sometimes, as in the case of Photoshop, the embedded raw converter (ACR) is sufficiently capable, but ofsometimes they use separate software for the two functions.

[jbcollins1957]

Thanks for the in depth overview of the two different types of programs. Do most of the people in this community use rawtherapy as their editor or is their a many different types that are used here.

[DanK]

Thanks for the in depth overview of the two different types of programs. Do most of the people in this community use rawtherapy as their editor or is their a many different types that are used here.

I don't think anyone has ever run a poll, but based on what I have seen posted, I think quite a number are used, and I think the most common raw processor among people who post here is Lightroom/ACR. Beyond that one, I don't know. I do know that several people have posted about rawtherapy.

[pschlute]

Thanks for the in depth overview of the two different types of programs. Do most of the people in this community use rawtherapy as their editor or is their a many different types that are used here.

I use Silkypix Developer Studio Pro for most of my raw conversions, and Photoshop CC for most other editing. Silkypix is a great raw converter I have used for years but does not have the advanced editing tools that PS has. So if I do a lot of work on a picture above simple cropping, I create a TIFF from the raw file and then edit that in PS.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the in depth overview of the two different types of programs. Do most of the people in this community use rawtherapy as their editor or is their a many different types that are used here.

Most of the members here seem to use commercial software. If I were to guess, Adobe Lightroom is likely the most popular piece of software used by the members here as a raw editor. Adobe Camera Raw (is used by some; it uses the same "engine" as Lightroom's Develop Module), Phase One Capture One is used by others (especially Sony shooters,as a version comes with Sony cameras) and some use DxO PhotoLab. There are a number of other raw convertors, especially the ones that come with the camera that are also used by some(Canon's Digital Photo Pro, Nikon's ViewNX-i, etc.). There are a few others that pop up from time to time; ACDSee, Corel, OnOne, etc are ones I have seen discussed here too.

In terms of pixel based editors, Adobe Photoshop is used by a lot of members, some use Adobe Photoshop Elements. Serif Affinity has quite a following as well. Corel Paintshop Pro has quite a following as well, but not so much by the members of this site.

As a general "rule" the raw convertors have a parametric editor. This tool is excellent for global adjustments, reasonably good for area adjustments and not particularly good at all for local adjustments.

Pixel based editors are very good (in fact I would say just as good as many parametric editors) for global adjustments, excellent for area adjustments and excellent for local adjustments.

Most people who are starting off will often find that a raw convertor / parametric editor suffices for their needs. As their needs / skills improve, most will also start learning to use a pixel based editor.

[xpatUSA]

Hey, just for fun I tried faststone. Very simple as far as basic editing goes but it just might help me get my feet wet and soften the learning curve.

I use FastStone Viewer a lot, which has a really useful tool which allows comparison of four images simultaneously on-screen while moving them all around and zooming in or out simultaneously. Great for weeding out bad shots.

Be careful of viewing raw files - it has two settings, one converts the raw to RGB, the other (faster) simply extracts the embedded preview JPEG. It is a pixel editor meaning that each action can be applied more than once.

Should you get into color management, it does not store a color profile with an edited file.

For which reason, also make sure that you have CMS selected to on, otherwise non-sRGB images will look funny on your screen.

All of the above and more is selectable in the Settings tabs - push F12 to see 'em ...

[Shadowman]

I first discovered FastStone years as a replacement organizer after free version of ACDsee started misbehaving after OS upgrades, I didn't like the slow pace of the organizer in Elements. I also like using it as a comparison tool between edits and found it a decent editing tool for fast edits for online posting.

[george013]

Most of the members here seem to use commercial software. If I were to guess, Adobe Lightroom is likely the most popular piece of software used by the members here as a raw editor. Adobe Camera Raw (is used by some; it uses the same "engine" as Lightroom's Develop Module), Phase One Capture One is used by others (especially Sony shooters,as a version comes with Sony cameras) and some use DxO PhotoLab. There are a number of other raw convertors, especially the ones that come with the camera that are also used by some(Canon's Digital Photo Pro, Nikon's ViewNX-i, etc.). There are a few others that pop up from time to time; ACDSee, Corel, OnOne, etc are ones I have seen discussed here too.

In terms of pixel based editors, Adobe Photoshop is used by a lot of members, some use Adobe Photoshop Elements. Serif Affinity has quite a following as well. Corel Paintshop Pro has quite a following as well, but not so much by the members of this site.

As a general "rule" the raw convertors have a parametric editor. This tool is excellent for global adjustments, reasonably good for area adjustments and not particularly good at all for local adjustments.

Pixel based editors are very good (in fact I would say just as good as many parametric editors) for global adjustments, excellent for area adjustments and excellent for local adjustments.

Most people who are starting off will often find that a raw convertor / parametric editor suffices for their needs. As their needs / skills improve, most will also start learning to use a pixel based editor.

We've been discussing this before. Only some remarks for James.
There're only 2 type of image editors as far as I know: vector based and pixel based. All photo editors are pixel based, meaning the canvas/image have defined sizes and within that image one can go as deep as a pixel.
Raw data don't contain pixels and before people start shouting: no RGB pixels. The image/rgb-raster has to be created out off the raw data. After that it's all just pixel based editing. Except for a few functions where the converter maks use of the raw data like wb and exposure.
Parametric editors save the editing as a list of commands with their parameters, while non-parametric editors save the image as in memory.
Most converters do use enough tools to finish your shot as been taken by the camera with global adjustments. Even local adjustments. The famous u-point technology for local adjustments where original used in the Nikon converter.
The more on editing based programs can do more. They're simple said used to change the image.
That's the rough difference between a converter and an editing program.
For a converter saves it's result in an editing list next to the original raw file, it can be used over and over. A specific editor saves the result by overwriting the original. It's a one time experience. Unless you use the Save As option.

If you want to continue shooting raw, which I would advice, in 99.9% a converter will be enough. And will have more then enough elements to learn about photography. And Gimp will be a perfect image editor to start with when you want to 'change' the image.

After a while you find out what you're missing.

George

[DanK]

After that it's all just pixel based editing.

James,

This is a very old argument on this site, and I think this will just confuse you.

I'll use the Adobe products to explain.

When you edit a raw file in ACR or Lightroom, the software renders the file to display on screen, but it does not change the file itself. Rather, it creates a list of edits that you can store either in the catalog or in a little xml "sidecar" file. That is why it is called a parametric editor; it simply stores the parameters of your edits. It does not create a physical file until you tell it to, and even then, it leaves the original raw file untouched.

In contrast, editors like Photoshop and Gimp actually change the file as you work. Photoshop will create a temporary file and then save it in the format you want at the end. This is typically what is called a pixel editor.

George has been arguing about this terminology for a few years, but that argument shouldn't obscure for you this fundamental difference in how the two types of editors work.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Just to add to Dan's comments:

A parametric editor is called that because it uses parameters to equations and formulae to make the edits. These parameters are stored in an external file (called a sidecar file) or a database (sometimes referred to as a catalogue). Parameters do not take up a lot of space, but do limit the types of edits that can be done. In general, using a parametric editor takes very little additional storage on your hard drive. It also means that the initial file (so long as you are careful with your saving and naming approach) is not changed at all. Delete the sidecar file or remove the edits from the database and you are back to the original state. This is why the process is referred to as being non-destructive. Because they have a fairly limited functional range, these types of editors are generally fairly easy to learn.

A pixel based editor actually changes the value of the R, G and B. Once these values are changed, it can be impossible to go back to the original image, so it is often best to work on a copy. Pixel based editors are often referred to as being "destructive" editors for this reason. The raw files are protected because they cannot be altered in the editing process and must be turned into image data by a raw convertor / editor before they can be used. Because of how these editors work, files can become huge. I have a few image files that get close to taking up 2 GB in disk storage.

Pixel based editors can do a lot of things including major surgery on a file, so a have a lot more tools and have a much longer learning curve.

With respect to George's post. He has a very unique view on how the editors work. I don't think the authors of the various editing software would agree with him. I would also invite you to look at the images posted on this site by the various photographers who respond to your queries. As a general rule, I would suggest that the ones with the strongest images probably understand the field the best.

[jbcollins1957]

Wow, thanks guys for all the info. Doing some looking around and I found "Lightzone", it is a raw converter with very simple editing tools but also has a zone mapper (based on Ansel Adam's zone system). Here is the link if anyone is interested "http://lightzoneproject.org". Also there is very good "Youtube" videos explaining the software layout and how to use it. Again thanks for all your excellent info.

[xpatUSA]

<> ... Delete the sidecar file or remove the edits from the database and you are back to the original state. This is why the process is referred to as being non-destructive. Because they have a fairly limited functional range, these types of editors are generally fairly easy to learn.... <>

James, earlier, you said "Not many tutorials on learning RawTherapee [RT]. I figure if I can learn basics in GIMP about post processing then it might make it easier to learn RT."

Now that you know that the GIMP is 'pixel-based' you'll understand that learning the one doesn't help much with the other. Additionally, I'll comment that RT is perhaps unique in that it has a huge functional range and takes some people a life-time to learn. Don't let that put you off - it's well worth the effort, IMHO.

I have both apps, they each have their pros and cons.

HTH.

[george013]

James,

This is a very old argument on this site, and I think this will just confuse you.

I'll use the Adobe products to explain.

When you edit a raw file in ACR or Lightroom, the software renders the file to display on screen, but it does not change the file itself. Rather, it creates a list of edits that you can store either in the catalog or in a little xml "sidecar" file. That is why it is called a parametric editor; it simply stores the parameters of your edits. It does not create a physical file until you tell it to, and even then, it leaves the original raw file untouched.

In contrast, editors like Photoshop and Gimp actually change the file as you work. Photoshop will create a
This is an old subject we don't agree in. But I'm prewtemporary file and then save it in the format you want at the end. This is typically what is called a pixel editor.

George has been arguing about this terminology for a few years, but that argument shouldn't obscure for you this fundamental difference in how the two types of editors work.

Dan

Dan,

What is the original file??? It's that disk file, a raw file or a jpg,tiff or whatever. That's loaded in memory in a raster format, defined in 2 dimensions. That's where the editing is done, in memory. The difference is when you save your editing. A parametric program stores the parameters the functions has used, a non-parametric editor overwrites the original. ONLY THEN.
Be warned. If we continue I show you a diagram.

James,
This is an old subject we don't agree. But I'm pretty sure I'm right. For you it's total irrelevant. My advise is stick to RawTherapee or any other and get used to that. If you know the possibilities of that process you will know what you miss.
I started to use a Nikon dslr in 2008 and started to shoot in raw immediately. I've all the files and can redo them all with the knowledge I've now. Most important fact on photography are your eyes. I hardly make use of an editor and when it's Gimp.

George