I chose RawTherapee first because it had film-like presets/luts and I’ve gotten used to it a bit since I started with it last June 2025. However, that images I’m editing on isn’t high-resolution (more like thumbnail resolution) and that it’s beginning to annoy me a bit. It also renders quite slow per parameter (while I’m sure the slowness of my M1 Macbook Air contributes to that, still based on my experience, it was noticeably slow compared with the old Lightroom classic I have).
Which comes to my topic question: Is it worth migrating to Dark Table from RawTherapee? I have further questions below:
Where can I find film-like emulations that I can install as presets (Kodak Ektachrome, Ektar, Portra 160, Portra 400, Portra 800, Kodak Tri-X 400, Ilford HP’s, Fuji Superia’s, etc.)
Does it perform substantially faster than RawTherapee?
Is it true that it doesn’t read “LOSSY” RAW files? I almost always take pictures with my Fuji cameras under “Lossless compressed” format.
Does it support the last Fuji cameras particularly the X-E5? If not, will it render the same colors as the presets applied to old Fuji Cameras like the X100vi while firmware update that includes X-E5 support is still pending (in case it hasn’t officially come out yet).
Hoping to get all your comments, suggestions and answers to my inquiries as soon as possible. Thank you so much for your time.
#1—Thank you for the tip of just copying and pasting LUTs.
#2—Often the modules currently at RawTherapee are:
a. Processing Profiles
b. Editor
c. Queue
d. File Browser
*But to my observation, by default, everything’s open. Still, I think closing all of them wouldn’t really improve performance.
#3—Great! Lossless compressed files are supported.
#4—Okay. Will check what cameras are supported by Dark Table based on your link.
So, overall, you would recommend Dark Table over RawTherapee based on my inquiries and actual user experience, @paperdigits ? Perhaps you could indicate a few pointers as to why it’s DarkTable for you, personally. Thank you.
I’m a dt user, but I do have RT installed on my machine.
The images you edit in RT contain full detail, but the display isn’t at full resolution unless you zoom in. I assume that is done to conserve resources or speed up processing.
While less obvious, dt by default does not completely show all detail for similar reasons. There is an “HQP” mode (High Quality Processing) you can toggle, but as you might expect it is resource intensive. I do not bother with HQP due to the longer processing times.
On my machine, rendering in RT can be a little slow (maybe 2 sec. depending on the change) but I’m not very good with RT, so I’m not pushing things around very much.
With dt, it depends on which modules you use, and the settings you select. For me, rendering slows down as I get closer to the end of my workflow, where (for example) I may have one or more instances of diffuse or sharpen. But the results are worth the short wait.
I’m running on a (Linux) PC that dates back to 2012 with a 4th-gen core-i5 and 16 GB RAM. Your laptop should be much faster than this, but I wonder if perhaps you might be low on memory when running RT. If that is the issue, I doubt changing to dt would solve your issues. dt Memory Performance
One more thing: the workflow in dt is different from RT, and you will have a learning curve. But hey, it’s free to try, so why not?
2 - depends on your usage. There are some modules that do not compromise on quality for speed (diffuse or sharpen). It can use your graphics card though, that speeds things up quite a bit. Also, if you change something at the bottom of your stack of changes, stuff above it has to be recomputed.
3 - idk
4 - I shoot with an X-T4, I believe it supports newer models. Idk. But I’m pretty sure the list of supported models is out there somewhere in the docs or release notes. It costs nothing to try it either.
I think darktable is worth it for the maximally robust masking functuinality alone. Won’t even go into praising other details.
My one reason for picking DT over RT was the parametric and drawn masks that can be applied to every module that can benefit from them. The ultimate localised editing is what attracts me to darktable.
I started with Darktable, then tried Art (a fork of RawTherapee), then tried RT, and then went back to Darktable.
There is no right answer of course. They are all excellent, and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend any of them. I think the key is finding the one that you feel most at home with.
For me, it was the DAM features of Darktable (often maligned for some reason) and the masking that persuaded me to stick with it. And development on it seemed so much more dynamic and active, which I really appreciated. It has changed massively since I first started using it, and many of my initial problems with it have gone. It’s not unheard of that you can put in a feature request, and within a couple of days, it’s implemented. This is a very underappreciated strength of the project.
Over time I became more and more comfortable with it to the point that I can now do almost anything I want with it. So much of it is now second nature to me, and I’m more than happy with the results I get from it. But I would stress that it takes time to get truly comfortable with it, so make sure you are willing to put the effort in to really learn it.
I am a RawTherapee user since its very begininning: back then, it was freeware, running only on Windows.
At present, personally, I do no plan to switch to darktable. There are so many features to explore with RawTherapee and, time permitting, I would be willing to check them out.
To be honest, in the future, before moving to darktable, I would first check whether or not ART fits all my very limited “feature requests”
At work, I usually only shot macro pictures and I try very hard to get everything perfect on camera (Nikon) with a very limited editing, later on
This being said…
I truly admire darktable for many reasons: very active development (mind blowing to say the least), option to customize all shortcuts, GPU support, masks, Map page, water marks, Lua scripting support etc etc
IMHO, one BIG point in favor to darktable are the video tutorials available, especially on YouTube (e.g. by Bruce Williams, just to name one). They are extremely useful to start with: since darktable is extremely powerful, its learning curve, to really master this software, is consequently high.
I have come to love the way DT will copy and import my images into structured folders that will make sense in 20 years time. I don’t use all the tagging and rating features but that may be my missed opportunity.
The X-E5 was only just released. Official support will be available in the next release of Darktable in December. That said, since the X-E5 is using a known sensor, you really only need to edit camerasupport.xml (IIRC) to make it work.
Lossy compressed Fuji RAWs are not supported. But, frankly, they have too bad artifacts to be useful anyway. But lossless compressed RAWs are supported.
i switched from rt to dt, the pic that convinced me had a totally blown out sky in rt that I couldn’t fix but became perfectly exposed at the push of a button with filmic even
my other bugbears with rt mostly concern colour correction, I know there are all those tools in the lab adjustments etc but I have no idea what they do, using color eq etc in dt is a lot easier for me
I’m not sure I can answer all of your questions, but here’s my experience.
Some 20 years ago I used Adobe Lightroom and found it a breeze to use both for correcting images and managing assets. DarkTable is the closest to that I have come across.
I find DarkTable hard work: there is much to learn and I find it far from easy. However, I am prepared to invest in it because of its asset management and inherent database. RawTherapee has some great adjustment controls that are easy and intuitive to use and I wish there were similar controls in DarkTable.
Your decision depends on what you value most: ease of use versus asset management. For me the latter alone is sufficient and I am happy to bear the cost of learning how to use the less intuitive image manipulation features in DarkTable.
This was my experience as well. RawTherapee just makes sense to me. I found DT too modular and I was never really able to wrap my (somewhat limited) brain around it.
I’d be interested to find out what the download numbers are between the two applications. I wouldn’t be surprised if it ran 10:1 or better in favor of DT.
Some 20 years ago I used Adobe Lightroom and found it a breeze to use both for correcting images and managing assets. DarkTable is the closest to that I have come across.
I find DarkTable hard work: there is much to learn and I find it far from easy.
Here is the thing, you have 20 years of experience in one software package and comparing it with something you don’t know.
When Adobe introduced the subscription model, I switched to Capture One. I am not against paying for software (I am a developer too, and somehow we should make a living too). But the subscription model is just plain wrong for the user.
I had to relearn so much in Capture One. At first I found it a very hard program to use and I missed many things from Lightroom. And I have been missing things from Lightroom. But after 9 months or a year, I loved it! And if you ask me, I would recommend people to use it over Lightroom.
But Capture One is moving to the subscription model too… So I settled on darktable. And it is a hard program to use. And I have asked myself… why did I switch?? But you know what… after 9 months I love darktable!
Yes there are still things that I am missing tools in darktable. That are mostly ai for masking (subject detection) and the way Capture One is dealing with shadows and highlight is so so nice. (and if I would be more capable in C I would like to contribute)
So my point is, is it worth migrating? Yes, if you put in the effort! I have considered RawTherapee too. But the number of great resources for darktable and - but that is very personally - I find the interface of darktable much cleaner and predictable made my choose darktable.
@martinus, I’ve gone through a very similar journey myself with a few years of Capture One, and about a year of Lightroom, and always going back to Darktable eventually. Your comment is spot-on.
Learning a new rawdeveloper takes time. I’d say, it takes me a good few months to stop sucking, and about half a year to become fully proficient.
Each of these three tools had something to teach. But ultimately, I enjoy Darktable the most.
Interestingly I had the similar experience. LR, Capture One and
then started with RT fairly learned it quickly. I was intrigued with masking in DT. Learning curve at the beginning was a bit steep. At the first a bit puzzled with inconsistency of DT with RT. Watching many YT videos, soon I was win over by DT, to a point that I maybe at loss if I need to use another photo editor. I am in process of rescanning of over 1000s of negative films. I am in awe every time with the finished image.
I went through a similar journey myself. Other than the subscription model, I was fairly happy with Lightroom, but I got a free copy of Capture One with my Fuji camera, so I tried that for a while before moving fully to FOSS with ART, RT and Darktable.
The “cost” of these subscription models often gets the headlines but something less talked about is the constant change. Adobe products went from perpetual licence to subscription only, Capture One for Fujifilm was discontinued, Affinity was bought by Canva and has now gone free with a paid premium option…
You never know what will happen with commercial software or how much it will cost in the future, and it’s very comforting to know that my RAW editor of choice will not have those issues. Of course, it could become stagnant at some point, but at least you don’t need to worry about it going premium or subscription.
Could you describe what was so nice about it? People in this community love a good challenge, so it would be good to see if we can replicate it somehow.
I have no idea what the math behind what Capture One is doing is. It might be that they adjust the tone mapper, or play around with exposure. That is very unclear to mee But Capture One has those four sliders:
And with this 4 sliders it is really easy to reduce the highlights, brighten up the shadows. If I am correct the white and black only affect the brightest and darkest 5% of the image respectively.
The closest I have come in darktable is either with the exposure module with masking, or with the tone equalizer in advanced mode. It get’s the job done, but it feels rather cumbersome. But maybe I am overlooking something in darktable…
In the type of photography I am doing, I often have to deel with high contrast (you will be surprised how many birds are rather contrasty, especially of the water), so I encounter this is a lot…
The “Percuptual Brilliance Grading” are nice, but don’t come close to what Capture One is doing. If use the shadow slider then there is also seem to be stuff happening in the brighter part of the image.
