On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 23:59 +0200, antonio montagnani wrote:

I am shooting in raw format. In the past I used GIMp+Ufraw, today I have
to use GIMP+Darktable or GIMp*Rawtherapee.Surprsie, I get different results, for example the red of Ferrari is correct in Rawtherapee, while
there is some violet in Darktable. Any idea what to check or I have encountered in Darktable, that (but I am not sure) was correctly operating in the past

This sounds more like a darktable question than a gimp quesiton - i think there may be a dt forum at pixls.us or at darktable.org?

However, since you're here - try checking the white balance module in darktable, and also switch off the base curve module, and see if that helps.

slave liam (ankh)

Liam Quin - web slave for https://www.fromoldbooks.org/
with fabulous vintage art and fascinating texts to read.
Click here to have the slave beaten.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 06:11:56PM -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:

On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 23:59 +0200, antonio montagnani wrote:

I am shooting in raw format. In the past I used GIMp+Ufraw, today I have
to use GIMP+Darktable or GIMp*Rawtherapee.Surprsie, I get different results, for example the red of Ferrari is correct in Rawtherapee, while
there is some violet in Darktable. Any idea what to check or I have encountered in Darktable, that (but I am not sure) was correctly operating in the past

This sounds more like a darktable question than a gimp quesiton - i think there may be a dt forum at pixls.us or at darktable.org?

However, since you're here - try checking the white balance module in darktable, and also switch off the base curve module, and see if that helps.

slave liam (ankh)

Alternatively, the forked ufraw at github (but not nufraw) should still build. But you would then need to create png files (16-bit for preference) from ufraw and open those in gimp. Tiff files might also work, but I'm wary of those (in the past, parts have not been understood - Thousands of Incompatible File Formats).

It's sad that ufraw is no longer supported, it's a much _easier_ build than DT or RT, and I found that both of those had far too many things to learn.

ĸen

thread 'main' panicked at 'giraffe',
/tmp/rustc-1.32.0-src/src/test/run-fail/while-panic.rs:17:13

Each of those raw processing tools has a different processing pipeline and ways to achieve results, so it's no surprise that they would be different from each other.

If you're going to use raw files and process them it might be worth some time learning one of the tools that feels best for you in a little more detail.

I can't really speak to your specific problem without more examples and perhaps a raw file to share that we can use to troubleshoot things for you. Both of those projects do have forums over at: https://discuss.pixls.us/rawtherapee https://discuss.pixls.us/darktable

You can also post in one of the more general topics to cover both (many of the devs from each project are on the forums and are likely to see any relevant posts anyway).
Try posting there and including a raw file that is giving you problems along with any results you are getting that you're unhappy with. There are many experienced users that might be able to help out.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list < gimp-user-list@gnome.org> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 06:11:56PM -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:

On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 23:59 +0200, antonio montagnani wrote:

I am shooting in raw format. In the past I used GIMp+Ufraw, today I have
to use GIMP+Darktable or GIMp*Rawtherapee.Surprsie, I get different results, for example the red of Ferrari is correct in Rawtherapee, while
there is some violet in Darktable. Any idea what to check or I have encountered in Darktable, that (but I am not sure) was correctly operating in the past

This sounds more like a darktable question than a gimp quesiton - i think there may be a dt forum at pixls.us or at darktable.org?

However, since you're here - try checking the white balance module in darktable, and also switch off the base curve module, and see if that helps.

slave liam (ankh)

Alternatively, the forked ufraw at github (but not nufraw) should still build. But you would then need to create png files (16-bit for preference) from ufraw and open those in gimp. Tiff files might also work, but I'm wary of those (in the past, parts have not been understood - Thousands of Incompatible File Formats).

It's sad that ufraw is no longer supported, it's a much _easier_ build than DT or RT, and I found that both of those had far too many things to learn.

ĸen
--
thread 'main' panicked at 'giraffe', /tmp/rustc-1.32.0-src/src/test/run-fail/while-panic.rs:17:13 _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

https://patdavid.net
GPG: 66D1 7CA6 8088 4874 946D  18BD 67C7 6219 89E9 57AC

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:46:49PM -0500, Pat David wrote:

Each of those raw processing tools has a different processing pipeline and ways to achieve results, so it's no surprise that they would be different from each other.

If you're going to use raw files and process them it might be worth some time learning one of the tools that feels best for you in a little more detail.

I can't really speak to your specific problem without more examples and perhaps a raw file to share that we can use to troubleshoot things for you. Both of those projects do have forums over at: https://discuss.pixls.us/rawtherapee https://discuss.pixls.us/darktable

Hi Pat,

I'm afraid top-posting always does my head in so I'll reply below my original post

[''']

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list < gimp-user-list@gnome.org> wrote:

Alternatively, the forked ufraw at github (but not nufraw) should still build. But you would then need to create png files (16-bit for preference) from ufraw and open those in gimp. Tiff files might also work, but I'm wary of those (in the past, parts have not been understood - Thousands of Incompatible File Formats).

It's sad that ufraw is no longer supported, it's a much _easier_ build than DT or RT, and I found that both of those had far too many things to learn.

For the OP your suggestion is sensible. For me, photo editing is something I would like to return to - but these days I have very little time for it. Mostly, I'm trying to build current released versions of existing software and keep up to date with changed dependencies. So in practice all I'm doing is to open an image and prove I can still use it in gimp. After spending time trying to adapt nufraw to the libexif changes, I've given up on that package (fixing it is outwith my abilities) and reverted to ufraw which is still usable although not as a plugin.

When I first had troubles with getting ufraw to work in gimp-2.9 (so, a little over 2 years ago) I got pointed to nufraw which at that time was usable as the plugin. But I also found some time to explore the dependencies of both RT and DT. I build from source (BLFS) so all this was new to me.

My notes show that I started with RT, and for my use (open a raw file, adjust the exposure until I was happy that I had a "more useful" base exposure, import to gimp, repeat for ± 2 stops (typically) for my three-exposures approach) I found it semi-usable but really horrible after the simplicity of ufraw as a plugin (adjust exposure, 'save'). For RT, at that time the only additional deps I needed were the float variantof fftw3 (I suspect I now need that anyway for the g'mic plugin) and libiptcdata), so given enough time I guess I could adapt.

Actually, looking at my git log I see that DT (2.2.5 at that time) didn't produce a gimp plugin when I built it, so what I actually ended up using was PhotoFlow (vips, pugixml, PF, PhFGimp). But again I found it awkward.

Summary: ufraw is much easier for those of us who only occasionally dabble on the shores of processing raw images.

Regards,

ĸen

thread 'main' panicked at 'giraffe',
/tmp/rustc-1.32.0-src/src/test/run-fail/while-panic.rs:17:13

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list < gimp-user-list@gnome.org> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:46:49PM -0500, Pat David wrote:

Each of those raw processing tools has a different processing pipeline

and

ways to achieve results, so it's no surprise that they would be different from each other.

If you're going to use raw files and process them it might be worth some time learning one of the tools that feels best for you in a little more detail.

I can't really speak to your specific problem without more examples and perhaps a raw file to share that we can use to troubleshoot things for you. Both of those projects do have forums over at: https://discuss.pixls.us/rawtherapee https://discuss.pixls.us/darktable

Hi Pat,

I'm afraid top-posting always does my head in so I'll reply below my original post

[''']

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list < gimp-user-list@gnome.org> wrote:

Alternatively, the forked ufraw at github (but not nufraw) should still build. But you would then need to create png files (16-bit for preference) from ufraw and open those in gimp. Tiff files might also work, but I'm wary of those (in the past, parts have not been understood - Thousands of Incompatible File Formats).

It's sad that ufraw is no longer supported, it's a much _easier_ build than DT or RT, and I found that both of those had far too many things to learn.

For the OP your suggestion is sensible. For me, photo editing is something I would like to return to - but these days I have very little time for it. Mostly, I'm trying to build current released versions of existing software and keep up to date with changed dependencies. So in practice all I'm doing is to open an image and prove I can still use it in gimp. After spending time trying to adapt nufraw to the libexif changes, I've given up on that package (fixing it is outwith my abilities) and reverted to ufraw which is still usable although not as a plugin.

When I first had troubles with getting ufraw to work in gimp-2.9 (so, a little over 2 years ago) I got pointed to nufraw which at that time was usable as the plugin. But I also found some time to explore the dependencies of both RT and DT. I build from source (BLFS) so all this was new to me.

My notes show that I started with RT, and for my use (open a raw file, adjust the exposure until I was happy that I had a "more useful" base exposure, import to gimp, repeat for ± 2 stops (typically) for my three-exposures approach) I found it semi-usable but really horrible after the simplicity of ufraw as a plugin (adjust exposure, 'save'). For RT, at that time the only additional deps I needed were the float variantof fftw3 (I suspect I now need that anyway for the g'mic plugin) and libiptcdata), so given enough time I guess I could adapt.

Actually, looking at my git log I see that DT (2.2.5 at that time) didn't produce a gimp plugin when I built it, so what I actually ended up using was PhotoFlow (vips, pugixml, PF, PhFGimp). But again I found it awkward.

Summary: ufraw is much easier for those of us who only occasionally dabble on the shores of processing raw images.

Regards,

ĸen --
thread 'main' panicked at 'giraffe', /tmp/rustc-1.32.0-src/src/test/run-fail/while-panic.rs:17:13

Sorry for the top-posting. :)

This totally makes sense for your workflow and I presume others. I'm actually wondering if there might not still be a good solution. Both RT and dt do have profiles/processing steps you can export/import. I wonder if you could create a simple profile that, once you had set a good exposure, would automatically export -1, 0, +1 exposures all at once for you into GIMP? Similarly, I wonder if you could invoke the command line version of RT and allow it to auto-match the tone-curve from the camera and export all three images back into GIMP automatically. (That would avoid having to use the GUI to adjust things if you didn't want to).

Of course, use what works for you and you enjoy using. :) Might be worth asking on their forums - someone might have a neat idea to help streamline your workflow. Glenn Butcher for instance has his own raw processing pipeline that he makes, and PhotoFlow might have some ideas around making things easier for you as well.

Oh, side note, Alberto on the forums has forked his own version of RT that he is trying to make more accessible for folks that don't necessarily need/want the depth of tools in the normal version - maybe there's something there that might be interesting for you? https://discuss.pixls.us/t/my-take-on-rawtherapee/13885

https://patdavid.net
GPG: 66D1 7CA6 8088 4874 946D  18BD 67C7 6219 89E9 57AC

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:28:18AM -0500, Pat David wrote:

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list < gimp-user-list@gnome.org> wrote:

Sorry for the top-posting. :)

No worries, it's a feature of gmail but I try to avoid it on lists.

This totally makes sense for your workflow and I presume others. I'm actually wondering if there might not still be a good solution. Both RT and dt do have profiles/processing steps you can export/import. I wonder if you could create a simple profile that, once you had set a good exposure, would automatically export -1, 0, +1 exposures all at once for you into GIMP? Similarly, I wonder if you could invoke the command line version of RT and allow it to auto-match the tone-curve from the camera and export all three images back into GIMP automatically. (That would avoid having to use the GUI to adjust things if you didn't want to).

Of course, use what works for you and you enjoy using. :) Might be worth asking on their forums - someone might have a neat idea to help streamline your workflow. Glenn Butcher for instance has his own raw processing pipeline that he makes, and PhotoFlow might have some ideas around making things easier for you as well.

Oh, side note, Alberto on the forums has forked his own version of RT that he is trying to make more accessible for folks that don't necessarily need/want the depth of tools in the normal version - maybe there's something there that might be interesting for you? https://discuss.pixls.us/t/my-take-on-rawtherapee/13885

Thanks for those pointers, but I do not expect to be able to look at this anytime soon (got to source parts for a new server for my home and get all my data copied to a bigger RAID, which will take several days) as well as the usual updates to packages.

On my current backlog of photos it is very rarely a straight 0, +1, -1 set of exposure - more like +0.33 +2.33 -1.67 or sometimes +2 +4 -0 on back-lit pics, but occasionally with a smaller range. But I'll try to find time to look at those suggestions. One day.

Cheers.

ĸen

thread 'main' panicked at 'giraffe',
/tmp/rustc-1.32.0-src/src/test/run-fail/while-panic.rs:17:13