Over time, I’ve been struck by how often it seems to be necessary to post the “Eek!” link. That has made me wonder whether one or both of these situations exists:
People are not even visiting RawPedia when they start out with the package.
There is something about the presentation or organization of the introductory pages of RawPedia that causes people to not read Eek!, or not read enough of it to understand that the display of the raw image is not likely to be a close match for the OOC JPEG.
Eek! is basically the first thing mentioned on the Getting Started page under the heading “Edit your first image”, so it’s not tucked away in some obscure corner. My best guess is that a lot of people are just installing RawTherapee and trying to figure it out from the app without ever looking at RawPedia. Perhaps what is required is something on the splash screen to draw attention to RawPedia?
If most people are like me, then yes they probably just install the software and try to use it directly without reading the documentation. But unlike me, a number of users report their problems and ask the question here, before trying to figure it out by themselves by reading the documentation or searching on the forum…
Edit: My RAWs do look different in Lightroom than the JPEGs, they are less colorful and darker. Yet in RT they look even darker and even greyer.
Most people know that RAWs look different, I just did not know that they were that different.
Maybe you should use Lightroom more often.
Well I don’t know, maybe the very first scentence should be in bold letters “Lightroom does not show you your real RAWs”
Well, I will not pay you a license for LR, but in fact I have LR and PS. And I can tell you about LR, I already did
Actually I hardly ever use LR, I only have the photography plan for PS
I dont know. I never liked LR
Everybody is using LR. And people are satisfied with LR. And they are not even bored of it. Apparently people like boring things
I even know people who first used RT for quite some time and then switched to LR because they could afford it
LR is not “what people know”.
A certain group of people, yes. And if they do like LR, then let them stick to it
and let those who prefer other solutions enjoy other ways of doing things.
Why must every piece of “developing software” be identical?
From my experience, it’s “normal” people who use LR. Most of them use LR because they don’t know other software.
E.g. if you want to make a license or any kind of certificate in photography, it’s LR that you have to know.
I like Open Source software, but politically, I am not in the left or any kind of “alternative” spectrum. I used to be left but I have grown older.
As I am writing this, I am actually downloading LR again. I am too curious.
I know several (semi)-professional photographers who absolutely do not use any Adobe software, and simply make great photographs and get recognised for that. So I really guess it’s really up to each personal preference.
And LR is good in many things, and definitely appeals to a large audience who doesn’t want to tinker with the many options RawTherapee, darktable and others have. This, again, is up to personal preference I think. Also, each software (and each camera) has its own ‘default’ mode of operation. It’s something to learn how to work with. I get the feeling you are looking for a ‘one size suits all’ or ‘golden solution’ to get that perfect RAW processing. But it just doesn’t work like that…
I am pleased to say, none of my images for probably the best part of 10 years have ever touched LR, Photoshop etc. I am a 100% open source photographer and have the upmost respect and admiration for the developers who build these awesome tools. I am a Rawtherapee, darktable, GIMP and GMIC photographer.
The pixl forums can get a bit technical sometimes but they are a great resource for information and probably my first port of call for when I have an issue, as I am the only open source photographer in the real world community of photographers I am involved with (local camera clubs).
Actually I gave 1 photo in 2016 to my friend who edited it in PSE / Nik on a practical night at our camera club !
When I mention RAW noise to Adobe users they look at me gone out !!! I’ve sometimes exploited the RAW noise to leave a bit of noise on my monochrome image, to give them a retro / film feel
Hallo Morgan_Hardwood,
Isn’t that exactly the right approach in RT? “Using a proper camera input profile (ICC/DCP), one tone curve, and optionally the HH and LH curves”?
What does “Doing this is generally a waste of time and missing the point” refer to?
micha
