I thought freeware was a meme until I tried RawTherapee and Darktable, and quickly realized the amount of neetbucks I would've saved had I not used Lightroom sooner. I don't even take pictures regularly. Why do photographers shill a corporation with comical levels of greed?
>>4522800Because Darktable is shit.
>>4522800>things costing money is bad>I’m on welfare and don’t do photography btwaverage sony/capture one hater
>>4522800Raw the Pee is alright, but C1 does all day to day editing better.
>>4522800>that tone curve
>>4522815First one looks like a generic base curve usually hidden as the initial import preset. Even Lightroom does it.
Anyone tried Rapidraw? I saw it mentioned in another thread
the golems will trip over themselves to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, to go see sportsball game or pop culture sing song dance. Why does it surprise you they will also pay 10$ for some jew's lightroom preset?
Because I've been a professional photographer for 25 years, I've used raw therapee and dark table, as well as a lot of other programs, and they are both stunted compared with photoshop and its myriad capabilities and plugins. If you can't afford less than 20 bucks a month for the world's premiere photography program, you probably shouldn't be treating photography as anything more than a casual pass time.
>>4522800>freewareThere's a perfectly good "free" version of Lightroom Classic if you know how to sail a ship
>>4522800>DarktableShit>RawtherapeeGood at the absolute most basic level, but lacking in a lot of features. I used it for the first few years of getting into digital photography.A few camera manufacturers also provide their own free RAW editing software and it'll be more color accurate to what you see in camera, so that's a better choice anyway.
>>4522800A capture one perpetual license costs as much as a kit zoom. Only consoomers and actual pros need subscriptions.
Isn't Darktable pretty good now with AGX? I never found it hard to use>Exposure>White Balance>AGX>Tone Equalizer>Color Balance RGB>Contrast Equalizer>then everything else (denoise / lens corrections / capture sharpening)
>>4522863Ren Kockwell, is that you?
>>4522800How is ai masking in c1 and resource hungry?I see c1 installation file is 1gig, lrc is 3.5 gigs, ps is 10gigs. Cracked versions.Do i need to install 10 gigs of plugins and shit to make it usable?I m doing very basic editing but ai masking is a time saver so a good ai masking is what i want but not so resource hungry as lrc.I m pretty happy with lrc but i wonder if the extra gigs are not bloat that just slow everything down and i never use.The only shit i hate about lrc is you cannot drag and drop files into it if you juat want to edit a caouple of pics fast. Also importing large numbers of pics takes too long. Also windows fucking photo viewer loads pisc much faster than lrc if i want to check them real fast and goes from fit to 100% zoom instantly while lrc still has to load details.
>>4522800>$15/mo is worth more than weeks of my lifeyeah schizo tranny get fucked not everyone has such a sad life
>>4522863>If you can't afford less than 20 bucks a month for the world's premiere photography program, you probably shouldn't be treating photography as anything more than a casual pass time.correct. and for these people there's the SOOC JPG mode
>>4522928The results of DT are always shit, never coming out as intended. Convoluted UI with many controls with all of them failing to give a single acceptable result. You want single slider result from LR? Do these 5 sliders and 3 modules juggling that only results in muddy colors or overcooked looks. All DT evangelists rave about "muh control" but an otherwise simple edit is impossible or massively overcomplicated. Devs don't know shit.
>>4522962actual skill issue
>>4522970Lol, literally all other editing software can do simple and usable UI/UX except DT. Even Raw the rupee can do it. Yes the skill issue is with the DT devs.
>>4522800>Why do photographers shill a corporation with comical levels of greed?As you can see in this thread, because they think paying $20 a month to a globohomo corpo turns you into a photographer. But only for as long as you pay.
>>4522976>Raw the rupeesaaarrrr i just got caughtDarktable too hard for me saar
>>4522976it takes a minute or two to set things up, you edit a few menus and youre golden. I am not the biggest fan of darktable just dumping every possible module on the user as a default setting but yeah, literally a skill issue.
>>4522863And there is something wrong with treating photography as a hobby? I mean, I'm Darktable user precisely because I do photo for fun from time to time, to photograph my scale models or go to anime cons, which is the only thing close to "real" photography work (combining portraits, concerts, events, performances on stage, etc).Any kind of subscriptions are bad for anyone else than people doing photography as a job because of adding up costs.
Looking at the old farts on DPreview, I think using computer too much leads to mental blocks and inability to adapt to any new tools.> You don't EDIT RAWS, you IMPORT them in your LIBRARY and then you DEVELOP themIronically, Darktable is the only other tool that can match this level of autism.
Why do ESLs dislike Darktable?
>>4522997ESLs have better education than US filth. And health care.
>>4522997Probably assume that single slider is better than multiple options because it's easier to use. I frequently heard instructions for PS in style of "move this slider to value X, that slider to value Y", without any explanation what these settings does.
>>4522800back when i was a broke student i just used the nikon camera software and it was good enough. i don't understand who pays for lightroom if they aren't an event/wedding shooter.
>RawTheraped doesn't even have free-form masks like Lighroom or Darktablelmfaoooo
>>4523026>i dont understand anyone who pays for a/c and a radio if they aren’t a valet. when i was a student i drove a got damn ford truck with plank flooring and dining chair bolted in and it worked damn fine. you kids dont know good you have it. now ya’ll want more than 100 horsepower. look up how much a 50s mustang had, ya idjit. you aint no racecar driver.fascinating reasoning but I’m just not using the shitty software. I’m buying capture one perpetual and using it with my full frame camera. SORRY!>inb4 a bloo bloo wasted money couldve been spent on me
>>4522800None of them have any useable functionality to fucking stitch photos to make a panorama, I'm not asking for the moon, just a basic functionality.I'll just keep pirating Capture One instead. Adobe can go die in a fire with the entshitifcation and abysmal performance of Lightroom degrading over the years
>>4523059I found that c1 has better colors and contrast control over b&w than LR and I like the workflow a lot better.
i used lightroom a lot and downloaded darktable to test it out but no major edits yet, just playing with the sliders. but if i were to actually pay for one (i pirate everything) which should i go for? capture 1? lr+ps combo?
>>4523039literal skill issue
>>4523039Based. Spendthrifts seething. >noooooo its $300! -sent from my $1000 camera
>>4523835Capture one for just photographyAdobe is generally inferior and steals your images to train their AI, but if you do any graphic design (all professional photographers must) it’s basically mandatory to have photoshop around. economically you’d use lightroom then, but do you want to feed your photos to AI? Eventually pictures of people you know will be used to generate porn.
>>4523835C1, but Photoshop can also be a worthwhile addition depending on what you do, and the sub includes Portfolio which I use for my secondary site.
>>4523835C1 is TOP MINTLR is MINTPS is ALMOST MINTHowever,PS is required for heavier edits / more "creative" shit. You theoretically could just use GIMP for that but unfortunately PS is just better. If your edits are more standard and serviced by the photo software alone sufficiently, then you're much better off with C1 perpetual. With that in mind I'd avoid LR and just go C1+PS if needed.
>>4522997darktable is filled with options difficult to get nice colors
>>4523965Why is c1>lrc?
>>4524198C1 isn't full of Adobe-tier jewism.
>>4524239Like what?I ll pirate both so price is not a problem
>>4524246You are still feeding and enabling corporate greed
>>4524239Nowadays, perpetual vs subscription license is an illusion of choice anyway. C1 sets the price to be the same as the cost of subscription for the period they expect you to keep your current camera body.
>>4524198C1 better>color tools>QoL / workflow>tethering>layersLR better>masking>generative removal>cloud support>adobe integration>online resources for beginnersBoth are completely fine for hobbyists and pro alike.
C1 is fast but masking is kind of assDxO has decent masking but really slow previewsON1 is a big sluggish piece of shitI'll be honest I never fucking tried LR
>>4524609I just tried LrC and now I know why Adobe is so jewish, it's because they can
Compensating for a lack of skill with paid presets and applications are we?
>>4522823Because it used to be pay once and you're done. Now, pay all the time just to use it.
I'm patiently waiting for Davinci Resolve's photo editing features to become "good enough"
>>4522800Because they suck, sadly.Also, I have become helplessly addicted to AI masking tools. When you have 3000 wedding photos to edit, it is an absolute requirement.HOWEVER, you can just pirate Lightroom, which is what any sane person should do. AI masking and denoising works, even in the pirated version. Generative AI stuff (like removing blemishes) does not work.
>>4525475Generative AI is literal Satan himself and should not be used. AI denoising and masking, however, is very useful tool like you said.Also, newest Darktable added AI tools, including denoising, but I have yet to test it.
>>4525475apparently you can make adobe buiness trial that is valid 2 weeks and login with you cracked version and use generative ai. you need to make a new trial account/email address every 2 weeks but i read in the monkrus comment section is works. did not test it myslef
>>4525475AI masking and denoise works with open source and local models, I use RapidRAW and it does a surprisingly good job. RAW denoise has a bug now that sets exposure of the export 2.5-2.7 stops lower but you can easily set it back up, the fix is supposedly coming in the next version.RapidRAW also has the capability to use your local generative model for content aware fill and heal/repair but you have to set those up separately. Denoise and masking works out of the box.Darktable also uses local models for denoise and masking but it is crude and the software itself is a UI/UX nightmare and the devs have no intention to make it usable.
>>4525642>RapidRAWHoly fucking shit, this is actually amazing!FINALLY a real competitor to LR
>>4523059This is my problem. I take lots of panoramas / composite shots and it seems like freeware is completely behind or missing. It is dead simple with Photoshop and the results are good, and the performance is always great. My problem now is that adobe will eventually quietly remove support for Windows 10 and my computer is too old for Windows 11. I really hate Windows 11 but macOS is not much better and the hardware for either is unnecessarily expensive right now. I would have switched to Linux full time if it weren't for the clear superiority of PS and LR. Please someone prove me wrong and tell me there is a free workflow that is competitive. Or that PS and LR can be used reliably on Linux with Wine or something.
>>4526232>too autistic to just use windows 11Sad
>>4526240Did you even read my post or are you too ESL to understand it?
>>4526243>My problem now is that adobe will eventually quietly remove support for Windows 10 and my computer is too old for Windows 11. I really hate Windows 11Yes, sounds like you have the autism
>>4526245Kill yourself at the earliest opportunity.
>>4526246>autistic lash out responseConfirmed
>>4526232Just fall behind in the versions and pirate them lol.Let me guess, you "need" more?
>>4526240NTA, but I'm still rocking Windows 7 along with RawTherapee and Photoshop CS5. Come at me.
>>4526293Also sad
>>4526469It is the only device of mine that isn't "up to date" and it's purpose is already well carved out. It's also the only "truly" wireless device in my house - which is an aspect that will become rarer as time goes on.It ain't exactly fashion accessory. No one but yourself cares what Windows logo is slapped on your little purse.
>>4522800If you have to edit your photos you need to get a better camera
>>4526644>you need to buy a better camera to have better noise reduction and sharpness you cant just do that on your PC>did you just set the colors yourself? no you have to buy the new camera to do that>you cant just set white balance in post you have to buy the new model with an improved auto white balance algorithmisn't this actually paying thousands of dollars for a committee of soulless non-artistic japanese salarymen to edit your photos
>>4526647>Has to buy every new model because each one "fixes" the shit colors of the last oneLet me guess, you shoot Sony? topkek
>>4526658Most people bought each successive nikon and canon DSLR because it "fixed" the jpegs from the last one. The early 5Ds can't reliably auto white balance at all. They're unusable in jpeg without gray card WB.
Ive recently come out of the “film photos shouldn’t be edited” morose. Using Affinity right now for curve and contrast adjustments. Dont feel like anything I’m doing warrants me subbing to Acope again
same reason I stopped using GIMPadobe literally has a package for photofags and it's only $15/month, you pay more for your cell phone and get less use
>>4526232>the results are good with photoshopIt's one of the worst, lots of stitching issues without easy way to fix them, too few projections available, memory hog. PS is only good for post processing, not stitching.Autopano Giga has been free for 3 years and is way superior
>>4526647All jokes aside, I sadly have to admit that Z5 II JPEGs are better than whatever I can produce out of Darktable, without having to, for example, remove green tint from most low light photos or figure out, why colors are desaturated (answer is usually "you are doing it wrong, it's supposed to be like that, makes it more like film").
>>4526793I've had that problem with all my Nikon RAWs forever. D600, D800, Z6. The joegs have beautiful colors, but the RAWs are washed out and it's virtually impossible to get the colours back.
>>4522800Yar har, fiddle de dee
>>4526802Do you have a potato which can run NX Studio from Nikon? It should produce at least as good colors as in camera jpg.
>>4527057Not him but NX Studio since last year or something require making Nikon account and all related shit. Still "free" but still a dick move.
>>4526947That or just use RapidRAW and learn to cope with Darktable
>>4527057I have tried NX Studio.It does indeed have better RAW colors right out of the box, BUT the fucking software itself sucks.
>>4526793It's refreshing to see when people admit they are incompetent at editing, thank you for being honest
>>4527088I won't lie that I'm master of Darktable or other stuff, I feel like I need to re-learn it every major version, plus I'm entirely self-learning and DT is like Linux - you can do tons of stuff, which means having incredibly larger degree of control but just as well much more room to fuck up. When Nikon shows me build-in JPEG, it shows me RAW after initial internal corrections, including local contrast, own tone mapping, selective saturation, etc. DT expects me to do that on my own and know how. I don't know this yet, maybe one day I will, unless they will change something again, which is very likely. Or I won't figure that out, which is also possible.So far the next change is scene-referred local contrast module, instead of display-referred included now.
>>4527090It's almost like it takes practice and time to learn a new skill
>>4527105>compile your color science from source read the docs patch the code relearn everything we changed it againWasting time compensating for fosstard developer incompetence isn’t a skill really. -Sent from Capture One on Mac OS
>>4527105No need to be sarcastic, anon, it's just a different priorities. DT is powerful tool that demands a lot from their users, it's perfectly okay to say you don't really want to dwell too deep. Sometimes you really "only" want to increase local contrast, saturate certain shades or only pump overall contrast and saturation a bit. Meanwhile DT says "no, you have to learn colour theory, study manual to learn what exactly each module do, choose color mapper and this and that and this and that...". Linux reference was fitting since it's similar situation to having user that want his OS to "just work" and installing Windows or some friendly distro like Mint and having someone deciding that "only true way" is to compile everything from source yourself (Gentoo).Kinda reminds me how frustrating it was to deal with certain library (heavily utilised by CERN) during obligatory coding courses at uni, with complicated functions that had no default values and expected users to know and understand significance of each and every single argument. Equivalent of walking into store and asking for leather shoes size 44 and clerk replying that he won't serve you until you define average moisture of the ground you intend to walk on.
>>4527111DT actually says “i dont know how to program that abstract feature without breaking something i mean it offends my uhhh philosophy. here, adjust fundamental parameters instead”
>>4527112This is actually true. Darktable's code is a mess. One guy gutted it and it got 5 times faster.https://github.com/aurelienpierreeng/anselAnd it's still a bit shit because it's built like a video color correction tool. Scene referred just doesn't jive with photography, which is always either srgb or argb in niche cases so it's just an added layer of complexity (for the human brain, not for the underlying math) for no benefit.
>>4527115>check GitHub page>longass paragraphs and tables explaining why his code runs faster>barely anything about why it's better as PHOTO EDITING SOFTWAREIs this autism?
>>4527132As photo editing software it's exactly as dogshit as darktable. He built it on theory without really being worth a fuck as a photographer himself. It is, however, a demonstration of why darktable will always suck and struggle to implement abstracted features people actually want instead of just lower level features non-photographers think are more elegant.
>>4527137Well, I'm kinda stuck with Darktable, since I won't pay subs for Adobe and don't accept their EULA, while stuff like Capture One is simply too expensive as one-time purchase, but I won't pretend that DT don't have some serious problem with development philosophy. When reading their documentation, blog posts or discussions, it's clear that they have some weird fixation at either replicating film behaviour (filmic RGB, by default, add some noise to highlights because "that's how film behave", mentioned filmic is present in most of their camera presents) or having very mathematical approach towards photos. I'm sciencist myself, physicists at that, but I understand that photo, especially digital one, is NOT supposed to be "1:1 representation" of how things were recorded but rather how photographer and audience FEEL it should. DT might, for example, implement hue shifts and add white to channels by default and try to fix stage LED lights effects but sometimes this is exactly what you want to achieve, the unrealistic colours coupled with lights and dance frozen at the moment. One might argue that, mathematically speaking, another photo might be better representation but someone ones might point it out at grayed out, washed or "dirty".
>>4527153Just pirate adobe
>>4527132Well, this >>4527111 certainly is, lol
