I would love to consult with you a bit my workflow how I develop a Nikon raw images … I use primarily RT + GIMP but in past months I’ve also tried DT and ART … I absolutely agree that probably DT is the best and the most powerful OSS software for developing camera raws but for my workflow RT + GIMP suffice …
On high level I do
in RT I use only Exposure tab and Colors tab while 99% of my work is done just with
Basic Exposure tools (curves mostly and black level + exposure compensation, I don’t use lightness, contrast and saturation sliders at all), Tone Equalizer (before TE introduced in RT v4.x I was using Highlights and Shadows)
Lab
Graduated filter - sometimes
then in RT a Color tab where I just use
White Balance tool
Color toning → Color Correction Regions with masks - for kind of split toning
everything else in GIMP
Sharpening and Denoising
all contrast and microcontrast restoration (high-pass / overlay mode)
Additional local edits via masks (typically dodge and burn)
Blending
All kind of scaling and exporting to jpeg
My question is simple - which tools from opensource toolbox (RT, DT, ART and GIMP) are the best for these particular tasks -
I have to acknowledge that I am biased. I am a dedicated DT user. RT and ART are both excellent programs but DT is my go to program. I also have GIMP installed and rarely need to use it.
There was a time when I used much earlier versions of RT which lacked localised adjustments. So when I was editing a landscape I might do two versions in RT. One was optimising the sky and the other the foreground. I might then bring these two exported images into GIMP and use a layer mask to combine the two versions.
However, when I switched to DT this tedious workflow ceased because DT has localised adjustments for nearly every module including denoising, sharpening, exposure and color adjustments. I simply didn’t need to use GIMP anymore except for very rare occasions.
I struggle to see any advantage in using GIMP for denoising and sharpening when DT offers an excellent range of options for this. I will leave it to RT and ART users to make their comments if they can see an advantage to use GIMP in the workflow, but I don’t see it with DT.
I don’t think either are clearly better than the others. It’s more about how well you can use the tools that you’re using. We’ve had long threads comparing sharpening in RT and DT. People really seem to like RT’s capture sharpening, and it is quite good.
For noise reducution, I think there are two kinds of people: (1) finding a result that is acceptable or (2) must eradicate all traces of noise. If you’re #2 then you probably won’t be happy with either, but if you’re #1 then probably either is fine.
Hi Terry … thanks for your input … I am considering quite some time to fully switch to DT … I am just used on to use my workflow that I am a little bit unhappy with it already because I’ve been trying DT out and agree that it’s incomparably more powerful than RT … for example these two images are from last weekend
I am definitely not knocking RT or ART or even GIMP. For me the reason I picked DT over other programs including commercial programs is the ability to create drawn and parametric masks for every module that can use them. That was the deal breaker for me.
I also see GIMP as a graphic arts tool, but DT and RT as raw file editors. So I only go to GIMP when I want to use my images in a graphic design such as a collage or applying artistic filters to create effects. It certainly has no place in my mainstream editing workflow.
GIMP was my go to program in the early days of digital when we all shot JPGs. It would still be a good choice for editing JPG images.