I’ve an interesting problem. I would open TIFF or PNG file using RT 5.4, but application doesn’t “see” these files. Preference/File browser - all extensions are checked, cache cleeaned. These files are scans from bw negative done using Irfan View (scanner Epson 4490 Photo) as TIFF files. Then they’re edited using GIMP and exported to PNG files. If I use RT 5.3 all is this same. But the most interesting is, that TIFF file prepared using Photo Shop are visible and editable with RT 5.4 and RT 5.3. I’d like to please for any help, I guess I just make mistake during scan or during save scanned files.
RawTherapee up to and including 5.4 supports RGB non-raw files, maybe your files are grayscale?
RawTherapee 5.5 will support grayscale images.
Yes, they’re photos in grayscale, indeed. Where can I find RT 5.5, I didn’t saw this application on RT website?
It will be released next month.
For now, either convert your grayscale images to RGB, or use a development build of the latest code. You can grab a development build from this page:
Get the one which begins with
Thank You a lot, Morgan, it works :)! I changed greyscale to RGB using GIMP and nowy I can edit my photos using RT 5.4. It’s important for me because of noice reduction, I scanned bw negative ISO 400 pushed to ISO1600, so film is very grainy. RT has better engine for denoicing
Thanks once more.
[Mailtrack](https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&) 05.11.18, 23:36:16
Yes, I really love RT denoising. But I have to wonder, if you plan to reduce noise, why are you shooting film?
ISO for ISO, modern digital sensors are much cleaner. I thought the purpose of shooting film today was to get the aesthetic of film, grain and all?
Not criticizing, I am now genuinely curious as to what application you are using film for, with a “digital mentality”. Restoring old family pics? Shooting in an elecronics restricted area? Please do tell.
I use analog film very often, it’s depends of my idea. First “look” on effects is by scanning of analog material, then I develope that as analog print In this case it was special occasion - I made some photos during my son’s wedding My idea was, that some of photos should be done using this same kind of camera like during my wedding. So I’d like to tell, that Zenit TTL still works :D!
If you have a digital slr, you could get better results digitizing negatives with a macro lens, compared to your film scanner (correct me if you are in fact drum scanning your negatives).
Here is a tutorial link if you are curious: https://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
You could either shoot the entire negative with a lower macro magnification, or for best results, shoot raw, develop the raw file in Rawtherapee, stitch the panorama in Hugin or Microsoft ICE, and then retouch in your pixel editor of choice (Gimp, Photoshop, or Affinity Photo).
It’s very interesting method, indeed, however it needs some practice in macro photography, as well as in panoramas I’d like to try this method, it looks very effective especially for single frames, but I haven’t macro lenses. What do You think about using of the kit lens with macro rings what I have?
What negative sizes are you shooting? What digital camera do you have? I have sub $100 macro setup suggestion that would give you excellent results, but the specifics depend on how big the negatives you are shooting are, and the resolution/sensor size of your digital camera.
For digitizing 24x36 mm negatives (or positives) a not so expsensive (but very good) setup is a Novoflex bellows combined with a Novoflex 60mm lens. This setup was (not only) designed for copying slides lots of years ago and still should work well. @Morgan_Hardwood uses this setup for macro shots with awesome reults, example:
Another, probably even better, though also more expensive, solution is the Apo-Rodagon D 75mm/f4
http://www.coinimaging.com/aporod75-4var.html, which is designed for 1:1 reproduction.
I was going to recommend bellows and enlarger lens, but specific enlarger lens recommendation would be dependent on negative size and digital camera sensor size and resolution. So I am awaiting a reply to my previous question.
Afaik, neither the 4.0/60mm Noflexar nor the Apo-Rodagon 4.0/75mm are desinged for enlargement. Both are designed for reproduction in the 1:1 range. To use them on a modern camera you need a bellows (or a tube + helicoid).
About enlarger lenses for closeup shots: The Apo-Rodagon 4.0/105mm gives nice results without CA:
Holy cow! Apo-Rodagon 105mm f4? That thing goes for like $1000 on Ebay! I was going to recommend El-Nikkors (much more affordable, especially for someone new to macro), the specific recommendation depending on the magnifications most likely used, based on negative size and digital sensor size.
I am thankful you gave me the opportunity to pixel peep on a raw file produced by that beast, nonetheless.
Well, it’s low level pixel peeping as the camera I used is a 12MP Nikon D700…
Well, my internet, for some reason is so slow that your comment beat the download. I saw it was a NEF and assumed it was a D800 or D850 file given that you spent so much on a specialty lens.
I bought the lens a while ago as the prices were much lower. I payed ~300€
Well, the D700 file did show virtually zero CA and what seemed might be a little bit of moire (impressive for such a low contrast subject).
Guess I missed out on deals like that, lol.
Well, the El Nikkor enlarger lenses I use are sharp enough for all but the most insanely exacting standards for macro work.