Thanks! I’ll have a look
Maybe add a grid in the perspective correction tool to help the user to locate vertically and horizontally
Thanks very much Alberto for listening to our requests, much appreciated.
That resize option is fantastic, more powerful than what I was envisaging. Looking forward to trying it out.
As for the recursive search, if it’s not something you’re interested in, I totally respect that. I do actually use DigiKam, but don’t think it would help for the use case I was thinking of. I just wanted to view and apply some edits all at once to a series of images I had in several subfolders. I think the only way to do it currently would be to manually move all the images into the same directory, right? Or maybe your new Queue profile option might help with this…
For what it’s worth, I personally think ART already has a professional look and feel.
If you want to apply edits all at once, then maybe you use the CLI and some batch script? You first create an .arp profile with your edits, then you ask the script to got through each subdirectory and apply the profile through ART CLI.
Thanks for the tip. It’s just that the functionality already exists in ART using the Copy > Paste Partial feature. The challenge is just getting to view all the images you want to edit in the same window in the File Browser.
I also think the Metadata filters would be way more useful if they weren’t just limited to single directories.
I’m on macOS 10.14.6 so I just got to play with ART last night. I have recently moved most of my RAW processing to RawTherapee and am loving it. I discovered ART on the same day as the 1.0 release. Great job. Right off the bat ART loads quicker than RT. Other tools feel a lot snappier but this could just be physiological.
My understanding is that ART is a fork of RT 5.5? Are there plans to start merging in features from newer version (5.8). I really like the new “Capture Sharpen” feature introduced in RT 5.8. It would feel redundant for you to code new features when there is already work being done in RT.
I also noticed a lot of tools/features removed from ART that exist in RT. Example, in RT the Black and White tool includes a curves feature. I’m not sure if you removed this or if they did not exist back in 5.5 when you forked. I’d like the know the thought process as to why some features are not there if they were removed. Do some of these additional features make the application slow? I wonder if you could add the ability to turn features on/off depending on the end user’s workflow.
Another feature I though might be cool would be some sort of workspace/layout option similar to what Photoshop has. If you are not familiar, you can change your workspace and the tools and layout are presented in a different layout depending on the type of work you are doing. I may want to use a different subset of tools if I am working on portraiture vs street photography vs landscapes.
As a end user I would love to know what your plans are. Do you plan on trying to merge back into RT (if that is something the RT team is even interested, RawTherapee hint hint)? Are you think you just want to use this as a starting point to evolve into a standalone RAW processor? If you are going on on your own what changes / refactors do you think you want to do with the code base? How could other developers contribute? I like how you brought over some Darktable features and did some Digikam integrations… do you plan on making the app more modular so you could interchange code with other projects?
Thanks again for sharing your take on this project. I hope to see this grow (be it as it’s own project or as a push forward in the current RT or some sort of new thing that grows out of this from RT, ART, DT, DK, ect…).
Sorry, I didn’t know this. But I checked with the color labels and it seems that some work (there are more colors in Digikam). What doesn’t work are the color flags that have the following meanings in Digikam: red: rejected, orange: pending, green: accepted. In the xmp file the red flag appears as:
This is about first impressions, more than anything. When you open ART (RT is guilty of this as well, of course) the fonts are quite big, the icons are big and ugly.
For my installation I changed the font size and the theme to the one that @blackfoxx made and the result is already much more pleasing.
You don’t have to be sorry, we are all thankful for the great work you have already done. I hope some ART user, who lives close to you, is so kind as to lend you his camera with tethering capabilities… (hint, hint)
In fact the way @agriggio implemented RL sharpening makes it closer to RT’s Capture Sharpening than RT’s RL Sharpening. He even added “corner boost” allow more sharpening in (softer) corners of tie image. Unless you’re really pixel peeping, I’m sure you’ll have hard times to find a significant difference between ART’s RL sharpening and RT’s Capture Sharpening.
at 100% view they look equal concerning artifacts
at 200% view I can see differences
When exporting a lot of images in batch it’s quite handy that Capture Sharpening in RT is about 2 times faster than RL in ART when not using corner boost.
When using corner boost it’s about 3.5 times faster
One simple request. Color tab > Channel mixer. Please change the font color of the three channels to gray of something. They hurt my eyes and are difficult to read!
lots of questions, let me try to reply…
Essentially, I have an obsession for frugality Or to put it another way, I removed everything that I personally considered not necessary. I understand that it’s just a matter of opinion though, but I am not interested in adding stuff back at the moment.
No, but the RT team is welcome to take whatever they want, and I am willing to help with the porting if they ask (they now this, indeed).
ART is already a standalone raw processor…
Well, right now this is a personal project, so there are no procedures in place… so, I’d say the best way to contribute is to fork and submit pull requests.
so, this sounds very digikam-specific, there’s no equivalent in ART, sorry.
Honestly, I never noticed this before, but now that you mention it, I agree
I have a small request regarding the masks.
It would be really great to be able to name the different mask instances.
This would allow you to come back and tweak the settings, knowing which part of the image you’re working on, without necessarily having to show the mask to identify the area.
It would be a time saver when there are a lot of masks.
I don’t know, however, where the name might appear because there is little room in the mask window.
Maybe a mouse click to switch between the correction parameters/ and the mask name?
Thank you for perhaps considering my request !!
I completely agree, thank you @agriggio for keeping this policy.
@jllailes I also think this is a good idea. Perhaps have the names visible and the adjustments made visible as a tool tip (if that’s possible)
@spidermonkey I agree, that would be a great option.
And I think this is one of the major features that differentiates ART from RawTherapee.
Yes, and that this feature will be a real + for complex retouching, especially on faces
That’s really a nice addition! I found it’s use not only for resizing on export (this way, resizing is not hard coded anymore in the .arp) but also for applying film simulations. For example for some stuff I like to have a black & white copy along the original colored versions. I made a partial profile with my most used b&w film simulation (Fuji Across) and I use it on a second export pass, without having to mess with the original full .arp profile.
another request: dt3.0’s new denoising module. Especially the non-local means part of it. I don’t know how easy it is to port over, but it would be worth it. ART’s denoising just can’t compete quality wise (I suspect it’s RTs module?!). Do you want me to compile a convincing showcase?
request (or bug): ARTs lens correction module has not all profiles that dt3.0 has. Or it doesn’t get loaded (Windows build here)?
Apart from that: the longer I use ART the more I like it! Fantastic work.