Any free RAW converters out there?

Daniel_Hyams said:

I disagree with your analysis, but ok. After reading your post a couple of times, I believe that the primary difference is how we are defining the "something" that has potential. You are defining the "something", it appears, by a snapshot of the current state of the rawtherapee package. I think we are agreed that the software, frozen in time as of today, is not useful for anything other than experimentation. I am defining "something" as the software+the author, which includes all future versions of the software to be released...in those future versions lie the potential that we are arguing about.

Click to expand...

I am defining it in terms of the browsing and thumbnail generation algorithms currently in the tool. When a tool freezes up and I cannot get a single RAW conversion, then I see no potential. Future versions when some of the underlying issues are fixed may have potential.

The tool as a whole with its author very well may have potential, but unable after a single test (I make snap judgements all the time) and having it fail horribly (zero RAW conversion before software failure) my only impression is software failure and it is hard to see potential in that. I know I am hard on software and regularly use huge directories of RAW files (ten thousand or more). But if software is not up to that type of usage then it has no potential for me as it will not fit in my workflow.

Perhaps what I am asking for is responsiveness of the user interface to the immediate task at hand rather than some past task. But this is a standard feature of modern software and I expect it.

Nonetheless, I agree a future version may have potential. But until I can browse to a RAW file to try converting it, there is not potential, just failure (i.e., a jet airplane that crashes into a housing subdivision beyond the end of the runway has no potential to fly cross country).

enjoy your day,

Sean

I think we just differ in semantics, I have the very concrete feeling that your use of 'potential' is much more limited than mine and Daniel's.

Yes, currently the software is definitely not finished, not ready, and not for production work.Particularly not for batches. OTOH, UI, aim, feature set, quality are already good. Would you be contend with 'promising' instead of 'has potential'?

Dierk Haasis said:

I think we just differ in semantics, I have the very concrete feeling that your use of 'potential' is much more limited than mine and Daniel's.

Click to expand...

I agree there. When I think of potential, I think of things like potential energy and other concrete things where the energy is there and does not need to be added.

Dierk Haasis said:

Yes, currently the software is definitely not finished, not ready, and not for production work.Particularly not for batches. OTOH, UI, aim, feature set, quality are already good. Would you be contend with 'promising' instead of 'has potential'?

Click to expand...

I can give you a promising. ) I took a single file alone in a directory and got an interesting result first time out. The least clipping of highlights (urban twilight hour shot) I have seen of any RAW converter. It did have some aliasing issues with a high contrast edge, but then so did 3 out of 5 RAW converters surveyed. It still needs work, but it seems to yield something with what may be useful for low light (or mixed lighting) work which is a zero clipping setting in the RAW converter.

Overall, the GUI requires too many clicks for my taste, but at first try finding the keyboard shortcuts is not expected.

enjoy,

Sean