I don’t mind saying that I have the utmost respect and admiration for @jdc (Jacques) – not just for his outstanding contributions to RT, but also because he strikes me as an extremely inspiring individual.
I’ve never considered RT ‘too complex,’ but then it was the software I cut my teeth on; as such anything else just seems ‘too basic’ for my needs (the bit that I find ‘too complex’ impossible is getting a shot I’m happy with in the first place 
).
I like your way of putting it.
For me, when I started getting interested in photography again after a few years ‘off’, I initially used my old copy of Ps Elements. But I’d never particularly enjoyed editing in Ps, and Elements Camera Raw was fairly basic. But I didn’t really know what I was missing.
Then I moved to Linux, and I couldn’t run Ps, so looked for budget (i.e. free!) and Linux-friendly alternatives.
I think I tried darktable, and gave up in disgust at the flat out-of-the-box results. (hard to believe now 
)
So I tried RawTherapee. That was better, I got a decent looking image, to start with, but I found I didn’t really know what I wanted to do with my photos… personal style? How do you make one of those?
I was basically moving sliders at random, with very mixed results. And I found it complex, just in the sense of what to use for what.
I went back to shooting jpeg for a while. But somewhere along the way I found this forum, and liked the discussions happening on here. I found the darktable manual, some tutorials, and liked the principle of the structured nature of the scene-referred workflow.
[edit] I think it was finding some film emulation LUTs that sent me back to darktable for some reason. Not sure why… RT is just as good if not better at using those]
In hindsight, I think why I liked it was that I had no idea what I was aiming for, and the classic darktable scene-referred set up (and exposed but (mostly) fixed pipeline) kind of gave me a track to run on. I had a lot of fun (and some frustration) teaching myself slowly how to get jpeg-like results, then better-than-jpeg results.
I’ve tried RT again since then, and have used it successfully. But to me it does feel a little impenetrable, coming from my hard-won darktable experience. It’s not always clear to me what does what, how tools interact, (I do like the clear pipeline principle in darktable) and even what tool should be used to get a certain effect.
To be clear, I’m not at all suggesting that any of this is an RT issue, it’s just different to what I’m comfortable with.
And maybe I’ve moved on (in my mind) from having fun working out how stuff works, towards using that knowledge to improve my pics.
I think there’s an element of chance in all this, in terms of what I find myself using!
For sure RT warns you by grouping some crazy heavy modules in the advanced tab and gives advanced layout/options within the modules but they can seem endless and it might be hard unless you are really skilled to actually know where you are taking your image. Contrast by details is in the details tab, the wavelet module of advanced and the local editing tab where it looks a bit different. I think finding a way to hold on to features that are needed and cut down on some potential redundancy might help with the slider overload…
I have more experience with DT than RT and I just tried the recent RT release… it seems really quite fast given I believe its still all on CPU and not using a GPU… even scrolling panning and zooming don’t have the screen artifacts that you see in DT with is sort of staged update of the screen. Also it has a nice support for color management options. File exports also seem quite fast. I tried it on several images and found that I could often get a nice image by just using default tone mapping enabled and the auto levels with or often without the automatched tone curve… Some tone eq maybe if needed and sharpening and denoise and some very nice colorful attractive images could be had with very little effort…
But man…wading through the stuff in the advanced tab is a load and sometimes I feel like I am going in circles with all the potential adjustments… maybe some more reading and notes might help… the good thing it would seem is that you can get some really nice results without venturing there unless you are brave 
Yep. I think with more research, watching some tutorials, etc. I’d get a lot more at home with it.
And darktable needed that too, for me.
@jdc mentioned some customization options I wasn’t aware of either.
I think it must be down to personal approach to some extent too.
I think you mentioned some good points about knowing the pipeline and having some video content to explain things …for example if you were going to use the retinex module would you bother to do any work on shadows and highlights or tone eq or whatever and then go on to use that or would you do some work in retinex first and see where you land and then go to other tools to tweak the image… I guess in short getting a handle on how best not to fight with yourself when editing and to come up with a logical order. Same for wavelets… would you do some work there first and then back to the basic adjustments for say denoise… or denoise first and then do wavelets denoise or only use one of the two … getting that sort of background I think would make it easier to make decisions about how and when to use which tools…
Thank you all for your contributions.
I didn’t expect so much.
Yes, I am one of RT’s developers, probably the oldest (since 2011).
I could have put another title as suggested, or other content. I’m not trying to say that RT is better or worse. Simply its architecture, its content are partly (largely) based on its history, its origin (2006 - imagined by a single man Gábor Horváth).
I simply wish to move the project forward as well in:
Everything you just wrote:
Thank you all.
Of course, it is possible to continue to make contributions and exchanges.
jacques
Yeah. RawTherapee tries, hard, in its advanced modules, to solve all possible problems (in essence, color correction stuff) with your pictures. Consequently, there are huge amount of options available in this part.
Most commercial software (e.g. Lightroom) are now relying on AI (artificial intelligence) to do this heavy-lifting (e.g. for inpainting, denoising, sharpening etc).
As regards RawTherapee it is mostly a “phylosophical choice” (I mean, not limiting che options available to the bare minimun, to “please” the new-comers) BUT this outcome also depends massively on the available manpower (programmers) to improve the software itself over the years.
With open source software, as you know, this team is usually veeery small and subject to change over the years
For me, the whole business of processing raw images is complex, irrespective of the software. There are the technical aspects relating to image quality and knowing what to look out for, as well the aesthetic aspects, which require a good understanding of colour, composition etc… As a beginner, trying to put all that together along with trying to understand the software was a bit like trying to learn how to write and learning how to use a word processor at the same time. Focusing on the processing software trying to find the ‘best’ solution was a mistake in my case so now I try to stick with one tool and learn how to use it well despite any shortcomings (perceived or otherwise). I’ve still got a long way to go.
Hello @Wayne_Sutton
I try to stick with one tool and learn how to use it well despite any shortcomings (perceived or otherwise). I’ve still got a long way to go.
I appreciate a lot your comment
A long time ago, I was studying a tech book about the SQL language and the PostgreSQL database. In its preface there was this sentence:
“It takes only a few days to learn the basic of the language but a whole life-time to master it”
I suppose it applies to all professional softwares.
Personally, just to name one, I deem darktable complicated to work with but it is really so?
Yep. probably. But I suppose this is mostly due to the fact that, as an end-user, I am far too used at working with RawTherapee and its interface. Therefore, I would (wrongly) expect the same workflow with darktable as well. This “request”, of mine, does NOT make any sense, of course
I was a Ratherapee user, and now I’m an ART user. I switched to ART in 2020, when Alberto just implemented spot removal, and some local editing.
I switched because it seemed to me that the development of Rawtherapee was proceeding slowly (or stalled), with a lot of talking and discussion about what, how and if.
Alberto was very fast, implemented local editing, masks, brush masks, complete support for CR3, all this months (or years) before RT team.
Yes, I know that ART is a one-man-band, it’s simpler to take decision, but, in any case, I had the impression that Alberto got the software off the ground.
He is also very clear: if you ask for a feature, his answer is YES or NO. If YES, in two days you will get the feature. If NO, you’ll never get it.
I think RT team lacks a BDFL (or maybe there is, but he’s not too Dictator )
Maybe now RT is changing
You are probably (partly) right. Rawtherapee experienced “logistical” problems until very recently.
But I think that’s the past now.
My approach (I am not alone, but it was me who launched this post) is to reconstitute a team, to (re)understand the logic of the system.
Having worked a lot on human factors, “habits” are essential in everyday life (and of course even more so) in the use of software. We forget very quickly, and automatic learning procedures disappear.
If you are interested, you can look at the work of the Danish Jens Rasmussen.
Jacques
Yes! Rawtherapee is complex! I have used Rawtherapee for many years, but I have thoughts of changing to something simpler. I am a hobbyist and don’t need all the options now offered. My needs are simple. My hobby is taking photos and not editing photos.
I don’t think RT is too complex in general but something I find too hard is dodging & burning, it’s one of the most basic operation in photography but it’s not so clear how to do it right now. There’s too many options (Color & light, tone equalizer, Dynamic Range & Exposure, … which I am supposed to use?) yet some important missing features; most importantly being able to rotate the spot, and feathering is too complicated to discover.
Personally I’d love a tool called “dodge & burn” with a single slider that just change the exposure (maybe add a tone curve & graduate filter in there) and having controls on the spot itself to rotate it and adjust the feathering.
Rotating the RT-spot is a very “old” request, as well as adding a “polygon” mode to the “elipse” and “rectangle” modes.
These are things that I don’t know how to do, I am not (contrary to appearances) a computer scientist.
These additions require 2 things:
For the “dodge” and “burn”, you will not have the usual techniques like those found in Lightroom, which use brushes, etc. and for good reason (GUI problems)
But a “thing” that I set up from the work of a researcher (with complex maths : not for the user).
Look in Rawpedia
https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Local_Adjustments#Dodging_and_Burning
Tools : Soft Light & Original Retinex
Mode complexity : Standard or Advanced…
But, we are no longer quite in the same general subject 
Jacques
I agree. A bit off topic but in addition to Jacques’ example above, it’s possible to simulate dodge and burn by using the L mask in the Color & Light tool as a luminosity mask in conjunction with the Lightness slider. It’s a bit cumbersome though and you can’t draw straight lines in the mask. The diagram at the bottom of the following post shows the curve shapes for the various masks used in Pat David’s original tutorial. https://www.gimpscripts.net/2021/01/ofn-luminosity-masks-ver13.html
Personally I find it easier just to use the Saul Goode script in the GIMP.
To be clear by dodge & burn I just mean local adjustment of exposure, it’s like the most basic thing one could want to do with local adjustments. I think the current spot system with deltaE would be good enough for most cases (no need of brushes), if we could rotate the spot. A slider would do the job.
With all due respect I think there’s value in just learning what you need from a tool (RT or otherwise) and simply using what you know (i.e., ignoring the rest) rather than choosing a tool that offers only what you currently need and nothing more. As you progress at some point you may well need and / or want additional capabilities. If you’ve stayed with a tool offering those (albeit previously unused) capabilities, it’s just a matter of learning an additional technique / aspect, rather than learning an entirely new tool.
Just my thoughts.
Good point!
In other words, RawTherapee is as complex as the User makes it - based on how they use it.
Thanks for the ‘tools’ tip!
If the concern is upping RawTherapee user numbers, I think what would be most helpful would be more tutorials and worked examples. The existing tutorials that various people have put up on YouTube are generally very good, but text-based worked examples would also be helpful (I know jdc has done some of these too). It also seems to me that, even though the pipeline is fixed behind the scenes, there are likely to be some “better” (quicker, more efficient, less back and forth between tools) orders in which tools should be used, but it is not obvious from RawPedia or other sources what those particular editing approaches might be. Is my reading of this what others are saying here too?
I think tutorials on the straightforward and classic modules would indeed expose new users to RT and help with learning but my question would be is there an existing video tutorial to cover something like this and if not who is tackling something like this (see below) and doing it well for perhaps the limited number of users who would ever venture into the full extent of this sort of myriad of controls and adjustments. THe video clip is a scroll with all options exposed and keep in mind that this is just one of several possible tools that you can add to a spot in local adjustments alone…
Kudos for the power this offers but I suspect much of it remains buried for all but a small fraction of the RT users I would imagine… glad to be wrong…