Extended Review and Experience with Rawtherapee

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joe Phelps

Member
Messages
27
Reaction score
23
With money tight and lockdown time aplenty, I just wanted to share this review of a free alternative to Lightoom that is really powerful, and encourage you to try it.

When I first became interested in photography in high school, I was gifted a DSLR but couldn’t afford the Adobe Software, so I downloaded Rawtherapee to process my raw files. At first, I judged it to be somewhat inferior to the adobe products I had some access to at school, somewhat based on legitimate comparative weaknesses, and some on baseless internet dogma of the supremacy of the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) engine. Nonetheless, I still used rawtherapee, as it was my only option for editing photos at home.

At first, I was somewhat overwhelmed by all the confusing options, although I knew enough basic theory to know what I was doing. As I learned how to use Rawtherapee through experimentation and reading documentation, the amount of full control of all raw processing parameters really accelerated my learning of the process and technical theory of raw processing (I doubt that many Adobe users even know what demosaicing is, and trying to boost color saturation without getting terrible out of gamut color blobs with CIELAB color channel S-Curves is so much more educational than just dragging a vibrancy slider up that does all the thinking for you). As such, I credit learning on Rawtherapee for much of the knowledge and confidence I now have.

In the last few years, I acquired the budget for buying a Capture One licence, or an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, but I ultimately chose not to, as one, I had grown accustomed to the power and control I had with the HSL adjustments as an equalizer curve, and CIELAB color tab and all the different convenient curve options it had, such as chromacity (specific CIELAB variant to saturation) with respect to luminance and chromacity with respect to chromacity, which allowed me to do complicated color corrections efficiently, that I’d have to create a mess of complicated masks to do the same thing in Photoshop, and couldn’t do in Lightroom. Also, Wavelets are so much more powerful and capable than a single clarity slider. There was so many obscure features in Rawtherapee that I came to rely on, such as dark frame subtraction, demosaicing algorithm control, RL deconvolution, which looks much more organic than LR sharpening whilst increasing resolution, flatfields (can be used to eliminate vignetting, periphery color shift issues, and even sensor dust spots in a pinch). Still, initial impressions from inexperienced users are going to favor the capabilities of Lightroom noise reduction, but once one gets versed with tuning the noise reduction in Rawtherapee, the comparison becomes a wash. Then, since RT 5.0 and more recent updates, Rawtherapee fixed many of its shortcomings, with more tonemapping algorithms, better performance on Windows (Rawtherapee can now process 24 megapixel files on my family’s dusty 2009 Windows 7 desktop, in which previously, it would crash easily), even more color controls, Lensfun lens corrections, which has many built in profiles for common lenses already and anyone can create a lens distortion profile, a functioning and competitive shadows/highlights control that doesn’t produce halos or other artifacts, improved chromatic aberration correction, and a general increase in stability and performance. Suffice to say, the workflow in RT is great, and I am committed.

Rawtherapee can now pretty much do everything possible in Lightroom, aside from Digital Asset Management (DAM) and local adjustments in the stable release (Use DigiKam (Free and Open Source DAM), and export a 16 bit tiff to your choice of pixel editors if these seem like deal killers). Last year, I was even able to edit through a 400 photo event shoot in less than six hours on Rawtherapee, whilst ending up with photos that looked much better than the photos the other volunteers took, whilst correcting difficult lighting conditions. Then, I did an all-day photo gig of a conference, with 600 photos to edit, in which I was paid around half a grand, and was able to continue providing quick turnaround editing on Rawtherapee. Most recently, I had a tight deadline for event photo turnaround that was sandwiched between classes that had only an hour gap, so I ended up able to successfully cull through 200 photos, and come out with 20 polished feeling edits in that insane hour. I have continued to use Rawtherapee for a vast amount of personal creative projects and professional projects for my Work Study job.

On my modest mid-tier spec’d Windows 10 computer, I have had no real issues with performance, stability or features necessary to edit photos professionally over the last year or two. Note that while stability isn’t perfect, like any real software, especially something as complex as a raw editor, Rawtherapee crashes are very rare these days, avoidable with experienced use, and developers are responsive to bug reports. Note that a crash doesn’t ever mean you lose any more than trivial work (replicable in 10-50 seconds) on one photo, as Rawtherapee automatically saves processing parameters in a recipe instruction like sidechain file, along with the original raw file, whenever you apply a processing profile, switch photos, hit a save processing parameter keyboard shortcut, or close Rawtherapee, minimizing the chance of losing work and constraining lost work to the last photo that you were editing before a crash. From my experience, I see no reason to recommend against Rawtherapee for professional use, aside from someone already having a committed and preferred workflow and/or not willing to deal with a modestly steep learning curve.

Finally, I like the aesthetic of the results from Rawtherapee better, and there are more avenues for creative control than in ACR. Once I learned my way around Rawtherapee, I became able to get my photos to have an organic texture not inherent in ACR. After I settled on a preferred defaults/ editing habits, I find the results impeccable and artsy. There are so many options and so much fine user control in Rawtherapee that it is easy for any aspiring photographic artist to create their own unique feel to their imagery, at a subtler textural level than the gross color and tone adjustments typically worked in.

For more information and to download Ratherapee and try for yourself, visit:
https://rawtherapee.com/ 2
For more detailed information on the functionality of Rawtherapee, visit:
http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Main_Page 3
 
Very well said Joe. You managed to touch on most of the "good stuff" about RT and that is why I keep using it as well. I started way back with LR1 then moved to C1Pro which I still use for some images. I just keep going back to RT though.

Since v5.8 they introduced Capture Sharpening which is reputed to recover detail lost to diffraction and is applied right after demosaicing. A Favorites tab can be used for just the tools you use, and there are a lot to choose from!
 
Yup, just when I didn't think Rawtherapee could get any better, Capture sharpening was introduced.

I've completely said goodbye to Adobe at this point, and use Affinity Photo instead of Photoshop, and find Rawtherapee and Affinity photo to be a very powerful combo, that satisfies all my still photo needs save astro stacking and panoramas.
 
good arcitles!
Thank you. I hope you give Rawtherapee a try. If you're looking for a full Adobe Creative Cloud alternative for stills, Rawtherapee to process raws, and Affinity Photo to replace Photoshop is a killer combo from my experience.
 
Last edited:
Thanks!

Have you (or Dave) tried ART? Alternative Raw Therapy.

I've been experimenting with darktable.
 
Haven't tried ART, as I have personally fell in love with all the advanced features in Rawtherapee that ART tries to simplify, but I guess it would be a good recommendation for beginners.
 
OK, I’m still pretty new to Post Processing software and trying to learn all I can as quickly asi can - ha! I’ve been using Canon DPP for organizing and Affinity for post processing, editing, etc. including RAW initial processing. So, with all of the good comments on Rawtherapee in tandem with Affinity - can someone explain to me why Rawtherapee is better than Affinity for RAW conversion? Not to challenge, just to understand. Thank You!

Edit - Asking ‘cause I’m trying to find the highest performance PP tools that I can without breaking the bank, and I’m still pretty much at the stage of not knowing what I don’t know regarding software performance. A similar discussion was recently going on over in the digital pro forum, a contributor over there suggested a purchased RAW converter package, and did a good job (I thought) of explaining why he felt the performance was better. But at this point I’m not quite ready to throw down almost $200 without learning more and exploring alternatives.
 
Last edited:
With money tight and lockdown time aplenty, I just wanted to share this review of a free alternative to Lightoom that is really powerful, and encourage you to try it.

When I first became interested in photography in high school, I was gifted a DSLR but couldn’t afford the Adobe Software, so I downloaded Rawtherapee to process my raw files. At first, I judged it to be somewhat inferior to the adobe products I had some access to at school, somewhat based on legitimate comparative weaknesses, and some on baseless internet dogma of the supremacy of the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) engine.
The only competition for the Develop panel is Capture One for control of highlights and shadows.
Nonetheless, I still used rawtherapee, as it was my only option for editing photos at home.

At first, I was somewhat overwhelmed by all the confusing options, although I knew enough basic theory to know what I was doing. As I learned how to use Rawtherapee through experimentation and reading documentation, the amount of full control of all raw processing parameters really accelerated my learning of the process and technical theory of raw processing (I doubt that many Adobe users even know what demosaicing is,
Oh dear. What if we're really, really happy with Adobe and see no need for endless fiddling with sliders and wheels?
and trying to boost color saturation without getting terrible out of gamut color blobs with CIELAB color channel S-Curves is so much more educational than just dragging a vibrancy slider up that does all the thinking for you).
Some people simply love marathon color tweaking. Between all the profiles available in LR and the hsl sliders and the targeted adjustment tools, it's more than enough.
As such, I credit learning on Rawtherapee for much of the knowledge and confidence I now have.

In the last few years, I acquired the budget for buying a Capture One licence, or an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, but I ultimately chose not to, as one, I had grown accustomed to the power and control I had with the HSL adjustments as an equalizer curve, and CIELAB color tab and all the different convenient curve options it had, such as chromacity (specific CIELAB variant to saturation) with respect to luminance and chromacity with respect to chromacity, which allowed me to do complicated color corrections efficiently, that I’d have to create a mess of complicated masks to do the same thing in Photoshop, and couldn’t do in Lightroom.
Wouldn't it be better to get a camera which provides a reliably pleasing output and all that fiddling isn't necessary?
Also, Wavelets are so much more powerful and capable than a single clarity slider. There was so many obscure features in Rawtherapee that I came to rely on, such as dark frame subtraction, demosaicing algorithm control, RL deconvolution, which looks much more organic than LR sharpening whilst increasing resolution, flatfields (can be used to eliminate vignetting, periphery color shift issues,
What are those?
and even sensor dust spots in a pinch). Still, initial impressions from inexperienced users are going to favor the capabilities of Lightroom noise reduction, but once one gets versed with tuning the noise reduction in Rawtherapee, the comparison becomes a wash.
Nowhere near what Topaz Denoise AI or DXO Prime can accomplish at high ISO with a single click.
Then, since RT 5.0 and more recent updates, Rawtherapee fixed many of its shortcomings, with more tonemapping algorithms, better performance on Windows (Rawtherapee can now process 24 megapixel files on my family’s dusty 2009 Windows 7 desktop, in which previously, it would crash easily), even more color controls, Lensfun lens corrections, which has many built in profiles for common lenses already and anyone can create a lens distortion profile, a functioning and competitive shadows/highlights control that doesn’t produce halos or other artifacts, improved chromatic aberration correction, and a general increase in stability and performance. Suffice to say, the workflow in RT is great, and I am committed.

Rawtherapee can now pretty much do everything possible in Lightroom, aside from Digital Asset Management (DAM) and local adjustments in the stable release (Use DigiKam (Free and Open Source DAM), and export a 16 bit tiff to your choice of pixel editors if these seem like deal killers). Last year, I was even able to edit through a 400 photo event shoot in less than six hours on Rawtherapee,
I roughed in 400 wedding nefs pretty close in about five minutes using LR's AI Auto, followed by maybe an hour of fine adjustments. It is impressive. Absolutely blows away any other program for production.
whilst ending up with photos that looked much better than the photos the other volunteers took, whilst correcting difficult lighting conditions. Then, I did an all-day photo gig of a conference, with 600 photos to edit, in which I was paid around half a grand, and was able to continue providing quick turnaround editing on Rawtherapee. Most recently, I had a tight deadline for event photo turnaround that was sandwiched between classes that had only an hour gap, so I ended up able to successfully cull through 200 photos, and come out with 20 polished feeling edits in that insane hour. I have continued to use Rawtherapee for a vast amount of personal creative projects and professional projects for my Work Study job.

On my modest mid-tier spec’d Windows 10 computer, I have had no real issues with performance, stability or features necessary to edit photos professionally over the last year or two. Note that while stability isn’t perfect, like any real software, especially something as complex as a raw editor, Rawtherapee crashes are very rare these days, avoidable with experienced use, and developers are responsive to bug reports. Note that a crash doesn’t ever mean you lose any more than trivial work (replicable in 10-50 seconds) on one photo, as Rawtherapee automatically saves processing parameters in a recipe instruction like sidechain file, along with the original raw file, whenever you apply a processing profile, switch photos, hit a save processing parameter keyboard shortcut, or close Rawtherapee, minimizing the chance of losing work and constraining lost work to the last photo that you were editing before a crash. From my experience, I see no reason to recommend against Rawtherapee for professional use, aside from someone already having a committed and preferred workflow and/or not willing to deal with a modestly steep learning curve.

Finally, I like the aesthetic of the results from Rawtherapee better, and there are more avenues for creative control than in ACR.
Photoshop too?
Once I learned my way around Rawtherapee, I became able to get my photos to have an organic texture not inherent in ACR.
This is a bit woo woo for my liking. Show us an example of "organic texture" unachievable in CC.
After I settled on a preferred defaults/ editing habits, I find the results impeccable and artsy. There are so many options and so much fine user control in Rawtherapee that it is easy for any aspiring photographic artist to create their own unique feel to their imagery, at a subtler textural level than the gross color and tone adjustments typically worked in.
Doubtful, but if you're happy, that's all that matters!
For more information and to download Ratherapee and try for yourself, visit:
https://rawtherapee.com/ 2
For more detailed information on the functionality of Rawtherapee, visit:
http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Main_Page 3
 
Thanks!

Have you (or Dave) tried ART? Alternative Raw Therapy.

I've been experimenting with darktable.
Hi, I tried ART twice but for some reason my exported tiff's were very blurry, didn't spend the time to find out why though. It does look like a scaled down version of RT. I am currently very happy with RT and C1P as an alternative with my own camera profiles. It does suck as a DAM however.

I also have Affinity Photo but admittedly do not use it as much as I would like, deferring to PSCS6 most of the time for speed and familiarity.
 
...Have you (or Dave) tried ART? Alternative Raw Therapy.
Hi, I tried ART twice but for some reason my exported tiff's were very blurry, didn't spend the time to find out why though. It does look like a scaled down version of RT. I am currently very happy with RT and C1P as an alternative with my own camera profiles. It does suck as a DAM however.

I also have Affinity Photo but admittedly do not use it as much as I would like, deferring to PSCS6 most of the time for speed and familiarity.
On Affinity Photo, its not as necessary if you have Photoshop CS6 and are happy with it, both can serve as the bread and butter of pixel editing IMO. There are a few features that Affinity Photo has that Photoshop CS6 doesn't, such as FFT denoise, https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.l...ters/filter_fftDenoise.html?title=FFT Denoise

and auto refine selection, which I find to be very helpful in speeding up edge selection for dodging and burning landscapes, something that used to be very time consuming in Photoshop CS2. https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.l...ine.html?title=Refining pixel selection edges

As far as features CS6 has that Affinity doesn't, I don't know, since it has been a while since I used Photoshop CS6, I just remember finding everything I was using in CS6 for my photo-editing style in Affinity Photo, such as high bit depth, adjustment layers, blending modes, HDRI 32 bit, healing, and content aware fill (content aware fill is named Inpainting in Affinity Photo, but does the same thing).

However, my recommendation of Affinity Photo is more for people who don't have Photoshop CS6 and are looking for something cheaper over the long run relative to Creative Cloud, as well as avoiding all the issues with Creative Cloud, such as needing to sign in, have internet connection at least once a month, potentially losing access to saved work if suddenly unable to keep making monthly payments (Think Covid 19).
 
It does suck as a DAM however.
Given that the developers are trying to make a program to develop raw files first and foremost, with the most capability, DAM is not implemented. The stated intent by the developers, readable here: https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee is for Rawtherapee to be used in conjunction with other software. Search open source DAM, and you will find lots of options.

Or you can do everything through the os directory system, that Rawtherapee is well integrated with, and just create well labeled folders for each SD card import.
 
Joe Phelps wrote:<snip>

Rawtherapee can now pretty much do everything possible in Lightroom, aside from .... .....local adjustments<snip>
end of story
 
It does suck as a DAM however.
Given that the developers are trying to make a program to develop raw files first and foremost, with the most capability, DAM is not implemented. The stated intent by the developers, readable here: https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee is for Rawtherapee to be used in conjunction with other software. Search open source DAM, and you will find lots of options.

Or you can do everything through the os directory system, that Rawtherapee is well integrated with, and just create well labeled folders for each SD card import.
Exactly. I mention it only to warn others that it is not as fast at culling as other options and does not have a search engine for keywords or exif. I don't shoot for money (anymore) so that suits me fine as I am not under any time constraints.
 
OK, I’m still pretty new to Post Processing software and trying to learn all I can as quickly asi can - ha! I’ve been using Canon DPP for organizing and Affinity for post processing, editing, etc. including RAW initial processing. So, with all of the good comments on Rawtherapee in tandem with Affinity - can someone explain to me why Rawtherapee is better than Affinity for RAW conversion? Not to challenge, just to understand. Thank You!

Edit - Asking ‘cause I’m trying to find the highest performance PP tools that I can without breaking the bank, and I’m still pretty much at the stage of not knowing what I don’t know regarding software performance. A similar discussion was recently going on over in the digital pro forum, a contributor over there suggested a purchased RAW converter package, and did a good job (I thought) of explaining why he felt the performance was better. But at this point I’m not quite ready to throw down almost $200 without learning more and exploring alternatives.
Sure. First of all, Rawtherapee is free, so if you already have Affinity, then adding Rawtherapee to your workflow presents no additional costs.

Second, Rawtherapee has a greater feature set of tools that are specifically designed for raw editing, such as control over demosaicing algorithm, capture sharpening, dark frame subtraction, better control over raw sharpening, non-destructive LAB color correction, greater range of white balance shift, sensor banding filtering, wavelets for control of detail levels much better than the vague clarity slider in Affinity Photo, faster and more accurate chromatic aberration auto-correction, lots of tonal compression features that produce much better results than Affintity Photo's shadow highlights, better black and white conversion control, and countless more capabilities for things that should be done at the raw processing level, not the compositing and retouching level.

Third, Rawtherapee is very good for processing lots of raw files very quickly, from having a dedicated processing file browser, to saving processing parameters that can be easily copy pasted onto other raw files shot in similar lighting, or doing quick adjustments, then batch exporting all the processed raws. As an extension, processing parameters are saved as a sidechain file so you can save parameters for later use and come back exactly where you left off without exporting in Rawtherapee.

Fourth, the image quality is much better, and lower artifact with Rawtherapee. Here are a sample comparison of rendering fine detail. Doing a blind comparison, my mother preferred the Rawtherapee raw processed result over the Affinity raw processed result looking at these 200% crops, both using the same nearest neighbor upscaling to see pixel structure.

Affinity Photo Raw fine detail.jpg
Affinity Photo Raw fine detail.jpg

Rawtherapee fine detail.jpg
Rawtherapee fine detail.jpg
 
True, on local adjustments, however, you can open Photoshop, Gimp, Affinity Photo, or your pixel editor of choice with a single click and have your rendered 16 bit tiff from Rawtherapee imported automatically, with a one click export to editor button.

Also, you do have simple graduated filters for exposure already built in, and the developers have already created a local adjustments fork of Rawtherapee, that they are still polishing before they merge to the release version. Go to the automated builds in Github to try local-lab out yourself, downloading the version labeled newlocallab and appropriate for your operating system.

https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/releases/tag/nightly

And try it out yourself, and then any ideas you have to make it easier and more intuitive, feel free to share your ideas on the Github, or the Pixls discussion pages:
https://discuss.pixls.us/c/software/rawtherapee
 
Last edited:
I've gone the full journey from Apple's Aperture (the original!) which I loved (although Apple made the UI more and more confusing before they finally discontinued it entirely), then to Adobe Lightroom, which I was skeptical about at first, but I learned to love, and then the RawTherapee which I was skeptical about at first -- and a little scared of -- and then learned to love.

Now I have to go back and export a bunch of stuff from an old archive in Lightroom, and it just seems clunky and slow and bug-plagued and infuriating to me.

I'm doing all my photo work on a Thelio now running Ubuntu MATE, which means a lot of Mac and Windows software is unavailable to me. That seemed like a serious problem at first, but over time I've learned that a lot of much-hyped photo software packages on Mac and Windows are just slickly packaged, hand-holding versions of effects that RawTherapee and The GIMP do perfectly well if you take the time to learn them (not to mention hunting for some of the free scripts that are available online).
 
Good insights, thanks! I’ll most likely give it a try in the not too distant future.
 
At first, I was somewhat overwhelmed by all the confusing options, although I knew enough basic theory to know what I was doing. As I learned how to use Rawtherapee through experimentation and reading documentation, the amount of full control of all raw processing parameters really accelerated my learning of the process and technical theory of raw processing (I doubt that many Adobe users even know what demosaicing is, and trying to boost color saturation without getting terrible out of gamut color blobs with CIELAB color channel S-Curves is so much more educational than just dragging a vibrancy slider up that does all the thinking for you). As such, I credit learning on Rawtherapee for much of the knowledge and confidence I now have.
Joe, thank-you for bringing up the CIELAB tool module that's one that I always skipped but am now going back to learn. Yes, I have been using RT for years but there are still tools I have yet to figure out! Now that I have some spare time......
 
Yup, just when I didn't think Rawtherapee could get any better, Capture sharpening was introduced.
Thanks a lot for this compliment :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top