I am not combining exposures. I am just looking for the better exposure. I guess deep down I always felt that digital cameras are underexposing.
So now, I have decided to change my default settings to: exposure row with 2 shots, 1 x -0.3, 1 x + 0.7.
I used to use Capture One and DxO when I started the exposure rows. I think they are/were not manipulating the RAWs as much as Adobe.
They are exposing relative to middle gray. What you probably want is ETTR.
What you call âexposure rowâ is commonly known as âbracketingâ. So you use it as a safety net, in case your camera messed up. Interesting. But only for snapshots. If you carefully prepare the shot, you donât need it except for higher dynamic range by combining the results.
Technically the RAWs arenât manipulated but interpreted without being changed.
Maybe attribute this sentence with a 
. Otherwise you sound to be piqued.
While globally there is a chance of 9:10 you are male, here itâs more like 90:1.
Best,
Flössie
1 Like
Having posted the âEek!â link I thought that all this confusion would be dispelled, but that is not the case. One of the possible conclusions is that the text is not clear enough. Suggestions as to whatâs missing and what can be improved are welcome.
As for finding the best exposure when it comes to raw files, that is a separate topic. I should probably create a page for that in RawPedia. In a nutshell, the best exposure in a 8-bit JPEG file is one where things look the way you want them to look out of the box, but in a raw file the best exposure is one where the raw histogram contains data in tonal areas within which you want to be able to show some form of detail. Do not judge the best exposure of a raw file based on how the image looks! The cameraâs preview or histogram are not good indicators of that (unless your camera behaves consistently regarding its raw processing, i.e. doesnât apply any styles or applies the same style always, and youâve done the work to map the JPEG histogram to the raw histogram, which I will explain in RawPedia). For example, if you shoot a scene in the park, and you want to be able to show detail in the clouds, then the best raw photo is the one where the part of the histogram which corresponds to the clouds, which are probably the brightest element in the scene except for the sun, are closest to the right edge. The further away from the right edge the tones you care about lie, the more noise the image will have, and the higher the risk of clipping the shadows under the trees.
The way raw files look is irrelevant when judging which raw file is best-exposed - eyes on the raw histogram.
To see the raw histogram, click the little Bayer icon 
in the Navigator panel in the Editor tab.
http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/The_Image_Editor_Tab#Main_Histogram
2 Likes
âBTW: 5.4 will have a really nice feature by @agriggio called âHistogram matchingâ that (together with the proper DCP) will make the RAW look almost like the JPG right from the start. (
for Alberto, yay!)â
I canât wait to try this out. (I give Alberto an âAtta Boy!â)
This new âHistogram matchingâ feature is currently on by default in rc3, so I suppose it will require some changes in the famous âEek!â article.
Over time, Iâve been struck by how often it seems to be necessary to post the âEek!â 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 âEdit your first imageâ, so itâs 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?
1 Like
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 forumâŠ
2 Likes
RawPedia should be available as a printed book
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 donât know, maybe the very first scentence should be in bold letters âLightroom does not show you your real RAWsâ
I donât think it is on us to tell people how proprietary tools work.
hi,
what for, exactly? and who is âyouâ in the above?
you = the developers of RT
ok. if you pay for the license, Iâll install it. deal? 
Glad Iâm not a developer for RT, Iâm exempted from installing and trying Lightroom!
2 Likes
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
So you never liked it, but the developers or another raw processing application should use it? Iâm not following the logic there.
2 Likes
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
At this point, I assume youâre making jokes. Anyone who can afford LR can afford RT. Anyone who canât afford LR can afford RT.
LR is what people know. That is not a joke
Ach, gnÀdige Frau oder FrÀulein,
LR is not âwhat people knowâ.
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 âdeveloping softwareâ be identical?
Have fun!
Claes in Lund, Schweden
2 Likes