Hi,
By reading the post What’s your photography workflow look like? I get the impression that raw editing is only a small step among many others. (For the sake of simplicity, let’s leave multiple exposure processing out of this discussion)
However, in my previous Photoshop workflow, I almost did all the edits in ACR, and let PS do only minor stuff (usually, smart sharpen only - because I’ve read somewhere that this tool was better than acr)
Besides, I usually see most raw editors have powerful tools which seem to fill almost every editing requirement - and many of these seem to intersect with tools from the main program (Gimp, Photoshop)
So, what are the boundaries between raw and non-raw editing?
There is a lot overlap between the two tools, and that is OK. As you work, you’ll find preference for one or the other. There is no hard line in division between tools, especially in open source, where projects will implement features as they see fit.
Maybe you need to ask yourself, “What is raw?”
The rest will manifest itself.
2 Likes
To my understanding, raw strictly means untouched data. However, with the exception of scientific or technical instruments, raw would normally denote image files that are the least baked. Loosely speaking, if a camera can only save JPGs, I would consider them to be raw, provided that the settings are as minimal and neutral as possible. That said, some in-camera processing could be desirable (e.g., certain types of corrections), but their desirability would depend on the user’s opinion and experience.
A more relevant topic might be the non-destructive workflow, where we are interested in whether operations are reversible or at least retractable at any point.
Such a wise 
. RT could use a quote of the day 
.
Gimp 2.8 only does 8-bit/channel so color/exposure correction quickly leads to color loss, so you have better do as much as possible in the raw processing step and keep Gimp for local edits or special effects. Gimp 2.10 removes this limitation so the functionality overlap widens significantly, but as far as I know there still a more more color/exposure functionality in raw processors than in Gimp, so the final workflow doesn’t change much (except the export-to-Gimp intermediate format which can now usefully support 16bit/channel…)
2 Likes
Gimp 2.9, which is the version I’ve installed, has already 16bit/channel support, right?
Lol! It isn’t surely a one-click answer, and maybe that’s good because it pulls me out of the one-click learning path 
After all, quoting Pat David,
Yes, and higher. I don’t know whether this is still true for 2.9.8 and 2.10.0-RC1, but in previous versions using 32-bit precision was much faster than 16-bit precision.
I strongly recommend you use the latest build (2.10.0-RC1 at time of writing), to take advantage of fixed bugs.
1 Like
Baby don’t hurt me
Don’t hurt me
No more…
I got in the habit of doing most things in RawTherapee a long time ago to avoid dropping into 8-bit GIMP as long as possible. Of course, the times they are a changin’.
Now it’s mostly where I feel I can play with some idea in mind. I’ll generally have a rough idea of where I want to go, so I’ll atill do as much as possible in my raw processor. Then I’ve got a few hints I like playing with in GIMP (some Wavelet retouching if needed, add some sharpening at that point since I have the scales already, maybe fiddle with colors a little for effect, etc).
It’s like, personal man. 
3 Likes