What you’re calling the starting point is the end point: the camera has processed it and it’s applied tone curves, color enhancements, sharpening, and noise reduction.
When you’re working with raw, you start out with something that has the potential to be better than the jpeg, but isn’t yet.
In this specific case, RawTherapee saw that the image was too dark, and made it brighter, which is something the camera does not do. By making it brighter, it makes noise more visible. Additionally, you have to combat the noise by applying noise reduction.
Furthermore, the effect of noise reduction isn’t shown in RawTherapee until you zoom in; Default and Default High ISO will look very similar until you zoom in (and then the difference will be obvious).
I think there is a misunderstanding here. All those other programs are pre-processing your raw file in some way (usually multiple ways).
The image you are seeing initially is just the embedded JPEG as created by your camera. It has a ton of processing applied to it to make it look this way. If you are wanting to compare what you see when the camera creates the JPEG for you vs. the raw file with minimal processing, you’re going to be quite disappointed.
You are also possibly mixing up what is important/happening when a raw processor opens the file for adjustments. There are many adjustments and processing that has to happen to a raw file for you to even be able to really see it.
I am assuming this is your first foray into playing with raw files. Please understand that you are seeing very underwhelming results as you get started because by it’s nature RT and other raw processors give you much more control over your processing at the cost of things looking quite dull initially.
If Lr or other programs look better to you out of the gate in them, it’s because they are processing your files before you’ve even begun modifying them (some sort of presets that get auto-applied maybe?). I’m not 100% sure because I don’t really use them.
Processing raws is much more time consuming and requires much more effort to get something that will likely look good to your eye. The added complexity is the nature of what happens when you get much more control over how your final image will be created…
@Clarinetto - There’s a good page on the RawPedia that covers a basic “Getting Started” type of workflow with RT for new users, perhaps that would help?
Yes, this is my first experience both with raw and with Linux and, as you can imagine, I’m kind of confused :D. I’ve already noticed the huge difference in the results you can get with a JPG and a RAW file. There’s a huge potential in this but it’s very complicated and I guess I’ll have to take my time in order to fully understand how Rawtherapee works.
Yes, I’m sorry there’s not a simpler path forward, but with great power comes great responsibility as they say…
Not to fear, there’s a ton of really, really helpful folks hanging around that will often be more than happy to help out (it’s what we’re all here for). Please don’t hesitate to drop in with any questions you have at all!
Thanks to everyone who replied to my post! I’ve finally “solved” the problem, even if there was no problem to solve in the first place. I just shot some other pictures and practised with some stock raw photos around and the CA autocorrection had a completely different effect on those. It made that batch of cat photos look really grainy and noisy, probably because of the high ISO. thanks
