Version: 5.8
Branch: releases
Commit: 9a9e0acbf
Commit date: 2020-02-04
Compiler: cc 10.2.1
Processor: generic
System: Linux
Bit depth: 64 bits
Gtkmm: V3.24.2
Lensfun: V0.3.2.0
Build type: Release
I have to work with a few dng files. Dont’t ask why, its a projekt of my photoclub.
I tried to convert a few cr2 files from my Canon 5DsR to dng with Digikam.
I found no other way to generate dng files on my Debian Bookworm system.
The dng file then i tried to open in RawTherapee, and it looks awefull. And no way to get a picture from that looks like an picture.
The same file opend in Darktable or in ufraw looks also not fine, but its a raw file which have to be processed.
Screenshot darktable
You are using a rather old RawTherapee version, which could be the reason. It is the official stable 5.8 but a lot has changed and been fixed in the meantime.
You can download a fairly recent Linux appimage development version right here:
There is also no strangeness going on on the right border.
@Thanatomanic : Any idea if and if so when the nightly builds are going to be fixed?
EDIT: @RobertS : Do you need to convert from cr2 to dng? Doesn’t the cr2 load, if not in the old stable, maybe in the newer appimage? This could get you going again.
Normaly I need no dng file. With the CR2 files there is no Problem.
It’s a project in the Photoclub to show what different people do with the same RAW. For this everybody should give a few RAWs as DNG file. Because not everybody is able to work with all the different Raws.
This can indeed be a bit frustrating at times. Luckily there’s a rather good article on RawPedia about compiling on GNU/Linux, which includes an all but complete list of dependencies and a few dependency install examples for a variety of distros.
Maybe give it a second try? If you run into a problem you can always ask us, I’m sure someone here uses your specific Linux distro and has build Rawtherapee from source.
I think i will try it again. No education without pain.
Another way that works dcraw -T -6 459A7863.dng
at the command line and work with the 16bit tiff.
It’s a few days (weeks, years) ago. At every run something was missing. It was a nice evenning with reading error messages and install a lot of dev files. And when the sun rises i gave up.
I know those nights as well… but not with RawTherapee at least (unless you try compiling on an ancient distro with out-of-date packages).
In any case, like @Jade_NL already mentioned, we have a rather good quality compilation page on RawPedia. If you’re up for it, you could try that out.
Now i tried to build RT by the way RawPedia describes.
And it works. Wow, thanks.
The dng file looks different now. The problems at the edges are gone, only the tone curve is still completely off.
Hello, this is really strange. If I open the file in RT 5.8-3049 it looks bad, like in your original screenshot. Opened in Art 1.9.3-49 it looks okay, as in your darktable screenshot. In both cases neutral profile + highlight reconstruction = Blend.
it is quite possible that digikam does not make good DNG. I have therefore switched to Adobe’s dngconverter, the DNG are slightly larger than digiKam’s but they are better and give me no problems. Try it out.
For my photo management I use digiKam with great pleasure.
I don’t like Adobe so much.
But someone in the german Debian Forum gave me a hint to a project on Github. raw2dng, converting with this the output dng file looks ok in RawTherapee.
Not sure what is going on with the tone curve (RT should, by default, ignore whatever tone curve is in the DNG unless you tell it otherwise), but the highlights behavior of that DNG screams “improper white point metadata”.
I didn’t even know digikam could convert to DNG - so not surprised that an alternative conversion method might be more robust.
I appreciate digiKam very much. Looking for a way to write keywords in the file, I looked for an alternative to my raw files (rw2) and found it in the DNG. Yes, digiKam can make them. They are also smaller than the Adobe ones. But: the tonal values are much darker than the jpeg and the lens correction does not work because digiKam shows a wrong lens. These problems do not occur when I do the conversion with dngconverter.
The raw2dng I do not know yet, will deal with it because I also little like Adobe, as probably no Linux fan.
Because I delete my original raw files after converting, it’s important to me not to get into experiments there and I trust the Adobe dngconverter to do it right. Since then (1-2 months) I have also developed many DNG - so far without any problems.
and I don’t have much influence over that, unless I propose or make changes way outside my comfort zone.
