RethinkRAW: a RAW photo editor built around Adobe DNG Converter

Software
27

Yes, that’s basically what it does.

Also, to make it clear, as far as I’m aware, I’m not using any undocumented (or unlicensed) features of DNG Converter. The command line API (which I’m using) is documented here (the click through license is here). XMP and DNG are “open” standards, some of the Camera Raw tags are even documented, others are saved in plain text for all to see.

I use ExifTool for all of the metadata stuff, and much of the XMP editing. I use Dcraw to extract thumbnails, and to get RAW pixel data out of DNGs (which I only use for white balance math - this code was ported over from the DNG SDK).

I use a browser for the UI, so all that’s left is glue code for all of this.

PS: My use case for it, is “interoperability” with my wife which uses Photoshop. I don’t like Photoshop, or Lightroom. As I said above, I wish Adobe launched a standalone version of Camera Raw and saved me the trouble.

4 Likes
28

I have no intention of monetizing this. The rational for the license set out above and here.

I’m simply not interested in building something that is primarily used to avoid Adobe license fees.

But I understand how the lack of an established license hinders contributers, so I’ll consider the CC NC licenses. I just wish they weren’t so incomprehensible.

29

No, you won’t :wink:. But that doesn’t matter, to me it is anyway a great piece of software. Perhaps one time you will get another zoom function to work, but anyway I like it and will use it.

Concerning the updating of the preview in the dng: It now works for me. Don’t know what was wrong. Thank your for the explanation on the different formats for exporting.

Concerning transfer of data: The keywords are not transfered. Look in the dng, there are two keywords: “Landschaft” and “Sonnenuntergang”. They don’t exist in the saved jpg anymore.

30

Yes, I saw that. It’s fixed in the code (I’m now copying at least one of those sets of metadata tags, Dublin Core).

Building and publishing a new release is not fully automated and takes a little time, but it’ll be in the next beta.

1 Like
31

Released a new version, should be fixed.

2 Likes
32

After reviewing the options, I decided to waive the non-commercial requirement.
If this was preventing anyone from contributing, have at it.
License is MIT No Attribution.

2 Likes
33

Great, thank you for the new build.

1 Like
34

Is RethinkRaw still under development? There was no release since January. Do you plan any enhancements?

35

I haven’t had much time for it, to be honest.

I’ve just released Beta 6 will all changes since January. Edge is better supported (at more or less the same level as Chrome/Chromium). I’ve added (very rudimentary) print ability. And there were a few fixes. Also, dependencies (ExifTool, etc) have been updated. But that’s pretty much it.

On the “roadmap” I have a couple of “big” features that might not be very interesting to others, but which are to me: “remote editing” (store photos in one device, edit from another) and Google Photos upload/sync. I’m a bit stuck on these, work gets in the way.

36

Thank you for continuing the development. I would very much like to use RethinkRaw more often. The biggest drawback is the quality of the saved file because you can’t work further on the compressed image. But RR offers the opportunity to export as dng. Wouldn’t it be possible to implement to save the result as demosaiced dng? The DNG converter offers this option and the result is much more like a tiff with which I could work further on.

37

Unfortunately a linear DNG only solves the demosaicing step, it does nothing in terms of white balancing, color grading, tone mapping, etc. I can add the option of exporting a linear DNG, but IMO that doesn’t help much.

38

So there is no chance at all to get more out of RT than the preview and the dng?

39

None that I can think of. Sorry.

40

Is the project still alive?

41

I think this might have killed it TBH. I don’t care how useful software is but if you make this statement, you disqualify yourself entirely from any kind of open source perspective. Dead as a doornail, at least to me.

If you’re making money from photography, and find my software useful in your endeavours, you should really license some Adobe photography software yourself. If you hold a valid license to Photoshop/Lightroom/Elements you’re free to use my comparatively small contribution however you want, including commercially.

42

This was not the last thing he said about licensing and usage, and doesn’t appear to reflect the conclusion he eventually came to.

1 Like
43

I know but using the Adobe DNG Converter as core for anything seems like a certain recipe for failure in any situation. That, as well as the earlier remarks such as the one I quoted, also points to a certain way of thinking which I do not feel conductive to any enthusiastic following on the open source side. Too many strings attached IMHO.

1 Like
44

It’s alive in the sense that it is still the only software I personally use to edit RAW photos, which, admittedly, I don’t do a lot of.

Most of my enjoyment with photography is the actual picture taking; editing, for me, is mostly a chore. I also organize my photos in Google Photos, because it’s the easy/lazy thing to do for the other half of decent photos that are taken with the camera I (and my wife) carry at all time: our phones.

So my goal, eventually, is to streamline the process of taking RAWs from SD card into: files for archiving, JPEGs for Google Photos; with the option to actually edit every 1/1000 file, and print it, either at home, or in a minilab (and my minilab accepts Adobe DNGs with edits for printing).

This allows me to do all that, albeit in a kludgy way, and not have use Adobe software I’m not supposed to install in the corporate laptop that I mostly use, unless the company pays for it.

People are free to use binaries and code for anything they want; licence is MIT-0. Contributions to the GitHub project are welcome, both issues and PRs.

Nothing significant has changed, so I haven’t published new builds, but you just want me to update dependencies and rebuild, file an issue on GitHub.

I have kids, a challenging full-time job, some other OS packages to maintain, and, regrettably, I haven’t had the time for more. I wish I did, because every year my unedited photos pile up, and I remind myself “there has to be a better way.” I haven’t found it though (IMO) and haven’t been able to fix it myself (for myself, which is the goal).

6 Likes
45

Made a new release: https://github.com/ncruces/RethinkRAW

New features:

  • updated dependencies
  • Homebrew and Scoop installers
  • a server mode that allows you to run this over a network

Server mode is something I wanted to do for a while. Install this on my “home server”, which has all my photos, edit from a (work) laptop that I can’t even install anything on.

Enjoy (or not)!

2 Likes
46

Bravo, I just tried this new version. Interesting, it works well.
An easy way to compare the results obtained by DT and those by ACR.

2 Likes