There has been a discussion regarding boundaries of acceptability of which tools should be allowed to be demonstrated within the Play_Raw forum.
Which editing tools should be allowed and accepted within Play_Raw?
Using any tool FOSS or non-FOSS as long as it is available free for to all to use either via trial license or non-FOSS license - as long as the post includes which tool was used and a description of the actions taken to obtain the end result.
Using any FOSS tool available from any App Store or App repository (includes FOSS tools like imagemagick & dcraw and anything from github etc…) - as long as the post includes the tools used and the edit history file or a description of the actions taken to obtain the end result.
Only using the FOSS software discussed on pixls.us forums (disregards FOSS tools like imagemagick & dcraw etc…) - but still must include the edit history file.
Using any tool at all - FOSS, non-FOSS or commercial whether available free to all or not - as long as the post includes which tool was used and a description of the actions taken to obtain the end result.
Using any tool at all - FOSS, non-FOSS or commercial whether available free to all or not - as long as the majority of the edit is undertaken via FOSS software and the post includes which tool was used and a description of the actions taken to obtain the end result.
0voters
The result can then be added to the Welcome to the new Play Raw category! to define the boundaries of acceptability and communicate the Play_Raw forum etiquette & culture.
If there is other etiquette & culture topics which folks think should also be added maybe best to discuss in this discussion rather than an actual image Play_Raw.
I’d argue that the etiquette and culture are already well defined, that’s why everyone posts their sidecar pretty much all of the time and most of the time proprietary software is not used. The definition of such culture and etiquette is also why things get called out when those norms are violated.
While we’re always open to dialog and change, this place is certainly not a direct democracy.
disregards FOSS tools like imagemagick & dcraw
This is particularly mind boggling, since we do discuss imagemagick a fair bit and have the wonderful @snibgo to education us about its more nuanced use.
Also RawTherapee uses dcraw and so does the ufraw plugin for gimp.
I would argue that comparisons to commercial tools must be allowed. How else could we learn from one another?
Furthermore, our cameras aren’t FOSS, many of our operating systems aren’t FOSS, most of our firmware isn’t FOSS… This is a place for discussing FOSS image editing, but it is not a political forum of FOSS fundamentalism.
While I could see that the original post (the first post in a thead) could do something like “I can do X in Y. How can I achieve this with opensource?”. We will definitely not allow this for replies. Many non FOSS tools are not available on many FOSS platforms. Trial versions might limit the scope in which they can be used. (non commercial and so on)
Most of our play raws were even “raw editor only” for a very long time. because it allowed people to easily learn from the sidecar files. I can understand that some people then added edits in gimp/krita on top if their raw tool didnt support local edits. But most people stuck to the raw editor and posting the sidecar files.
So no I do not see a huge value in constantly using non FOSS tools here in play raw threads.
I did not vote, because none of the options given represents my opinion completely. I agree with others here, that the play raw sections works well as it is. The main focus should be FOSS but showing results from proprietary software can be accepted as long as it is used for comparison with the aim to improve FOSS results.
Edit: The thread should not be labeled Play Raw, but Meta.
If you look at #processing:playraw activity, I think its use is quite apparent. It is best to stay on topic due to the high amount of contributions on any given thread.
We do have a collection of other categories for members and lurkers to explore. For processing that does not fit into #processing:playraw, we have #processing and #software. For showcasing processing results other than for sharing and didactic reasons, we have #showcase. If you want specific feedback, we have #critique. As you can see, there is something for everyone.
While I agree with (and liked) @Thomas_Do’s post, FWIW as a member who does use a particular non-FOSS program – Affinity Photo – I’d like to clarify why. While I’m not a FOSS evangelist as such (although I do recommend FOSS quite often) I used GIMP for a long while. But I reached a point where AP offered features not available in GIMP / Krita, or at least in a manner more suited to my workflow. I still have GIMP installed and keep it up to date. I try new releases, etc. But for my workflow, AP is better (for now at least). However, almost every other step of my photography workflow (and many others) is FOSS.
Again, for what it’s worth.
Back more on topic, I see no reason to officially change anything about PlayRaw unless future events dictate further action.
A commercial software can use AI (and can use it quite well). Some software like this even has access to zillions of images to choose from as a starting point. Competing (or comparing) to such result is not a fare game.
On the other hand - if commercial software achieves a very good (specific steps) like denoise or color reconstruction for example (and the FOSS creators can see something to aim for) - I see nothing bad with it because it is one element or a particular link of the chain.
It is one thing to point if a tool does something good (and aim to match or surpass it) a completely different story to showcase commercial achievements.
I see very little value in demoing the capabilities of the commercial offerings as a complete development of a picture. Even if the steps are explained - even if one can get a trial - most of the time they won’t even work on my OS (Linux)
At the end - I am much more interested to see what the FOSS software can reach.
My personal preference is to limit to only software from pixls.us, but I voted to be more permissive (any FOSS tool).
I’d also add a limit. Don’t use a development branch unless you also provide an edit with the released version. My understanding of play_Raw is so that others can inspect / learn your technique. People may not want or be able to install an experimental version. Permissive use would be to compare / demonstrate a new feature for a pending release (example there was discussion about darktable highlight construction in 4.2 vs. 4.3 using a play_raw submission).
Keep in mind the more layers we add on the more challenging it is to share free/libre. Unless stated otherwise, we assume forum contents to be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Personally, I would use non-FOSS only to illustrate an example or issue, with screenshots for people who do not have access to the software in question, but as I said before, I would take that discussion elsewhere in another category.
As far as I understand, there is no official list of software from or to be discussed on pixls.us. There is this list under the headline: “A selection of Free/Libre Open Source Software projects related to photography”. However, this is by no means conclusive, because :" If you find we’re missing something please let us know in the forums!". So, I think we are supposed to discuss all Free/Libre Open Source Software related to photography here.
@Thomas_Do And not all that is discussed here are on there, including that of developers who have introduced themselves and their software. Someone should update it.
