Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Darkroom > Image Processing and Workflow

Image Processing and Workflow RAW, DNG , TIFF and JPG. From Capture to Ready for Publish/Display. All software and techniques used within an image workflow, (except extensive retouching and repair or DAM).

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 20th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_Hyams
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old July 21st, 2006, 01:15 AM
Dierk Haasis Dierk Haasis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hamburg (Germany)
Posts: 548
Default

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
[DH² Publishing]
Writing and Imaging

Nikon D2x, Nikon D200, Breeze DownloaderPro, Capture NX2, xMedia2, IDimager, Adobe Creative Suite 3
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old July 21st, 2006, 11:07 PM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dierk Haasis
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dierk Haasis
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'?
I can give you a promising. :o) 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!