free editing software?

His Dudeness said:

HAPPYGUY_45 said:

Is there anything as good as lr c? if so what?

Click to expand...

... it depends on your requirements. Mine are primarily focused on editing and I want some DAM. So I would call darktable superior over LR, particularly regarding editing. darktable gives me a lot more fine-grained controll over my editing and an innovative processing pipeline. And it still allows me to be quite fast if I need it. There is a learning curve however, but it is rewarding.

Click to expand...

Yup! I have no experience with LR never having used a Windows or Mac at home but DT's parametric and drawn masking abilities are absolutely awesome, to name but one small(!) thing. It takes a bit of effort to learn but then DT will blow any competitors out of the water in the area of raw conversion.

I don't usually use a raw editor for bitmap edits (spotting, cloning, pixel manipulations) or for DAM as I adhere to a more conservative behaviour of using the right tool for the right job but I do know some people use DT for those tasks as well.

--
Albums: https://eu-web.online/photographics
Blog: https://eu-web.online/Mike-Bing/?lang=en

bakubo said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

bakubo said:

bakubo said:

Moreover, at least on Windows, there is no free software that includes all of Lightroom Classic's main functions (DAM, raw converter, and print module).

Click to expand...

According the darkable 4.0 manual there is a print module:

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.0/en/print/overview/

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.0/en/print/print-view-layout/

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.0/en/module-reference/utility-modules/print/print-settings/

I have not used the print module.

Click to expand...

Last I knew, Darktable's Windows version did not have a print module, even though Darktable's Mac OS and Linux versions do (which is why I wrote "at least on Windows"). If that has changed, I'd be very interested to hear about user experiences printing from Darktable under Windows.

Click to expand...

Okay, I see.

bakubo said:

And incidentally, GIMP's Windows printing is also, to put it charitably, limited and frustrating. No idea about printing from RawTherapee.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think that the free Adobe Bridge has a print module that is similar to the one in Lightroom Classic. I have not used it, but that is what I recall reading somewhere.

bakubo said:

bakubo said:

bakubo said:

bakubo said:

bakubo said:

Moreover, at least on Windows, there is no free software that includes all of Lightroom Classic's main functions (DAM, raw converter, and print module).

Click to expand...

According the darkable 4.0 manual there is a print module:

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.0/en/print/overview/

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.0/en/print/print-view-layout/

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.0/en/module-reference/utility-modules/print/print-settings/

I have not used the print module.

Click to expand...

Last I knew, Darktable's Windows version did not have a print module, even though Darktable's Mac OS and Linux versions do (which is why I wrote "at least on Windows"). If that has changed, I'd be very interested to hear about user experiences printing from Darktable under Windows.

Click to expand...

Okay, I see.

bakubo said:

And incidentally, GIMP's Windows printing is also, to put it charitably, limited and frustrating. No idea about printing from RawTherapee.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think that the free Adobe Bridge has a print module that is similar to the one in Lightroom Classic. I have not used it, but that is what I recall reading somewhere.

Click to expand...

From what I can see--if I'm wrong about this, somebody please correct me!--Adobe Bridge cannot itself print. I looked at Adobe's online user guide:

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/user-guide.html

Apparently Bridge (which is free) can export images in various formats, but Bridge cannot itself print them. There are some references to Bridge 'printing' contact sheets. From what I can see, at least currently, that really means making PDF contact sheets, not actually sending anything to a printer for printing a hard copy. I have not found any references to actually printing images from Bridge, and certainly nothing suggesting that it has anything remotely comparable to Lightroom's Print module.

FWIW, a lot of things that can be done through Bridge, like editing raw files in Adobe Camera Raw, require the user to have licensed and installed other Adobe products (like Photoshop) that provide modules that Bridge can launch.

Again, if I'm wrong, I'd really like to hear about it. Thanks.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I think that the free Adobe Bridge has a print module that is similar to the one in Lightroom Classic. I have not used it, but that is what I recall reading somewhere.

Click to expand...

From what I can see--if I'm wrong about this, somebody please correct me!--Adobe Bridge cannot itself print. I looked at Adobe's online user guide:

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/user-guide.html

Apparently Bridge (which is free) can export images in various formats, but Bridge cannot itself print them. There are some references to Bridge 'printing' contact sheets. From what I can see, at least currently, that really means making PDF contact sheets, not actually sending anything to a printer for printing a hard copy. I have not found any references to actually printing images from Bridge, and certainly nothing suggesting that it has anything remotely comparable to Lightroom's Print module.

FWIW, a lot of things that can be done through Bridge, like editing raw files in Adobe Camera Raw, require the user to have licensed and installed other Adobe products (like Photoshop) that provide modules that Bridge can launch.

Again, if I'm wrong, I'd really like to hear about it. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I bet you are right. I do not recall where I saw something about printing from Bridge. I suspect that just like using ACR in Bridge one must have Photoshop also installed and then there may be a way (without going into Photoshop).

Since this thread is about free software then this page has some info on printing in Windows using free, included stuff that might be useful for someone who uses darktable on Windows.

How to Print Photos in Windows 10


I do not do home printing so you most certainly know much more about it than I do. Maybe the free ways in the article above do not give the control that you would want, but for people who want free then it may be sufficient.

bakubo said:

Since this thread is about free software then this page has some info on printing in Windows using free, included stuff that might be useful for someone who uses darktable on Windows.

How to Print Photos in Windows 10

https://www.howtogeek.com/448990/how-to-print-photos-in-windows-10/

Click to expand...

There are certainly ways to do it; it's simply that, in my opinion, those ways are not very good--and in any case they don't offer the color management plus high-quality final resampling and sharpening that good software provides. But you can certainly print from the Windows Photos app or, IMO better, the older Windows Photo Viewer, which I've enabled in Windows 10 (see, e.g., https://www.howtogeek.com/225844/ho...ewer-your-default-image-viewer-on-windows-10/).

The excellent and free faststone image viewer (fasstone.org) has printing functions.

His Dudeness said:

HAPPYGUY_45 said:

Is there anything as good as lr c? if so what?

Click to expand...

... it depends on your requirements. Mine are primarily focused on editing and I want some DAM. So I would call darktable superior over LR, particularly regarding editing.

Click to expand...

Then you either haven't used LR in a long long time or you never understood the masking feature, Darktable is a nuisance and it's "innovative" processing pipeline is a major headache unless you like to have random results that are HDR looking that neither print nor display well! Sharpening is an unmitigated desaster in Darktable as is contrast and color fidelity (that ll is sacrificed for the terrible underlying idea that must preserve technical correctness - which is a myth)...

charlyw64 said:

His Dudeness said:

HAPPYGUY_45 said:

Is there anything as good as lr c? if so what?

Click to expand...

... it depends on your requirements. Mine are primarily focused on editing and I want some DAM. So I would call darktable superior over LR, particularly regarding editing.

Click to expand...

Then you either haven't used LR in a long long time or you never understood the masking feature, Darktable is a nuisance and it's "innovative" processing pipeline is a major headache unless you like to have random results that are HDR looking that neither print nor display well! Sharpening is an unmitigated desaster in Darktable as is contrast and color fidelity (that ll is sacrificed for the terrible underlying idea that must preserve technical correctness - which is a myth)...

Click to expand...

I have noted your belligerent posts on pixls.us and also the fact you have never come to terms with darktable. You also seem to be a Canon shooter and CRW's have always been somewhat troublesome. Lastly the few shots you have in your gallery on dpr don't really show off any specific raw conversion skills either.

You are entitled to your opinion of course but why you seem to feel the need to put down anyone else's opinion almost every time you post is a bit of a puzzle to me.

--
Albums: https://eu-web.online/photographics
Blog: https://eu-web.online/Mike-Bing/?lang=en

newmikey said:

charlyw64 said:

His Dudeness said:

HAPPYGUY_45 said:

Is there anything as good as lr c? if so what?

Click to expand...

... it depends on your requirements. Mine are primarily focused on editing and I want some DAM. So I would call darktable superior over LR, particularly regarding editing.

Click to expand...

Then you either haven't used LR in a long long time or you never understood the masking feature, Darktable is a nuisance and it's "innovative" processing pipeline is a major headache unless you like to have random results that are HDR looking that neither print nor display well! Sharpening is an unmitigated desaster in Darktable as is contrast and color fidelity (that ll is sacrificed for the terrible underlying idea that must preserve technical correctness - which is a myth)...

Click to expand...

I have noted your belligerent posts on pixls.us and also the fact you have never come to terms with darktable.

Click to expand...

Why do I need to come to terms with a concept that IMHO is grossly misguided as it may provide certain features but in such a way that you can not predict the end results nor do they help with common editing? - And the results I have criticised on pixls.us are mostly defended by people who have no creditability in terms of photography (there seem to be few photographers among the developer community, it's more hapless snapshoters who don't understand light and how to work with light and who then need to resort to all sorts of shenanigans to mitigate the captured desasters. They are also seemingly unable to notice glaring defects of the tools employed in editing. If there are visible halos from the unsuitable wavelet sharpening and everyone utters "uhhh and ahhh, how beautiful is this sharpening" I have to ask myself if these people haven't lost their mind... Or if the sharpening that you can gauge properly (because it is applied late in the pipeline) is deprecated whereas the sharpening that is applied before contrast changes is encouraged - a total baloney concept because contrast changes immediately invalidate any efforts you may have put into sharpening... A sharpening algorithm that needs a setting "halo suppression" because halos are so ubiquitous that they are inevitable but then becomes inconsistent if you enabled above option should never have been deemed "good enough" to remove or deprecate other sharpening algorithms.

There may be niche cases where Darktable is borderline usable (like if you need to match the 50s color grading applied to a TV episode and you are tasked to publish the set photos) but outside of that IMHO it isn't anywhere close to Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, OnOne. And it doesn't run well on Windows, nor MacOS (there it has been completely unusable because of the unwillingness to fix basic errors by/for the underlying libraries).

newmikey said:

You also seem to be a Canon shooter and CRW's have always been somewhat troublesome.

Click to expand...

So your defended tool isn't well suited to the majority of cameras... That speaks volumes how much you are detached from reality in your defence. If Darktable and its concepts were that good in its core functionality it would work equally well with any manufacturers RAW files, especially since the core RAW conversion is normalised as it uses a dcraw variant which has always been accused of a pro Canon bias (delivering best results for Canon raw files). Besides - CRW haven't been used for Canon cameras ever since the Canon 20D in 2004...

newmikey said:

Lastly the few shots you have in your gallery on dpr don't really show off any specific raw conversion skills either.

Click to expand...

Well, those shots are not there to show off any editing skills. So now you are resorting to ad hominem attacks based on shots you know nothing about. Well done!

newmikey said:

You are entitled to your opinion of course but why you seem to feel the need to put down anyone else's opinion almost every time you post is a bit of a puzzle to me.

Click to expand...

I am putting out my opinion when invalid comparisons between RAW converters are made which are misleading. I am critical some areas in LR/DxO/etc. (like the FAD that now AI driven image enhancements are becoming common practice, that again result in inconsistent effects across the image which may become visible if you for example print your images instead of displaying them on instagram - I dread the day LR adds the widely requested AI noise reduction, even though I know that this will not invalidate the existing edits nor will it become mandatory nor will the old, reliable but not as effective be deprecated).

newmikey said:

Lastly the few shots you have in your gallery on dpr don't really show off any specific raw conversion skills either.

Click to expand...

You are free to try to edit an image like the two bee flies on the blue violet columbine flower - Darktable will make a real hash of that because the blue color tones of the flower are captured well within the camera sensor color space but don't translate well into sRGB or AdobeRGB in their true intensity because they fall outside these color spaces. If you try to process such an image in a color space without a well defined transition to the output color space and without pegging down contrast early on all your edits will be a complete guesswork (and that's my main gripe with Darktable as you have no chance to adjust contrast, white balance and sharpening in a sensible way unless you resort to deprecated modules - and that means that your workflow will be voided when the version happens that escalates the "deprecated" to "removed", so for me Darktable has no future.

charlyw64 said:

...people who have no creditability in terms of photography

Click to expand...

Rather than trying to go over this whole text sausage you barfed all over the page, where exactly is YOUR "creditability in terms of photography" exactly? You've stated in the past you yourself are an amateur photographer - should that suffice in your not-so-humble opinion?

You have strong and uncompromising opinions on Apple, processors, software coding practices, Adobe etc. etc. which is what you don't let up reminding all who read you spent your 40 year career on.

Your profile both here as well as on pixls.us clearly show you love picking on others agressively but you post a bare minimum of original content yourself. What a life! You may be a bit younger than I am but age hasn't made you any milder.

But don't bother answering dude. I haven't got the stomach to deal with the negativity you spread around. Will leave it to others to pick up.

newmikey said:

charlyw64 said:

...people who have no creditability in terms of photography

Click to expand...

Rather than trying to go over this whole text sausage you barfed all over the page, where exactly is YOUR "creditability in terms of photography" exactly? You've stated in the past you yourself are an amateur photographer - should that suffice in your not-so-humble opinion?

You have strong and uncompromising opinions on Apple, processors, software coding practices, Adobe etc. etc. which is what you don't let up reminding all who read you spent your 40 year career on.

Your profile both here as well as on pixls.us clearly show you love picking on others agressively but you post a bare minimum of original content yourself. What a life! You may be a bit younger than I am but age hasn't made you any milder.

But don't bother answering dude. I haven't got the stomach to deal with the negativity you spread around. Will leave it to others to pick up.

Click to expand...

Ah, the old ad-hominem attack as ever...

Graham said:

The excellent and free faststone image viewer (fasstone.org) has printing functions.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's very good to know. I haven't used FastStone, but if it has color management and some sort of print decent scaling / sharpening, then it would take the immediate lead among no-extra-cost options for Windows users.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

The excellent and free faststone image viewer (fasstone.org) has printing functions.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's very good to know. I haven't used FastStone, but if it has color management and some sort of print decent scaling / sharpening, then it would take the immediate lead among no-extra-cost options for Windows users.

Click to expand...

In that vein, XnView MP (https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/#downloads) also has some printing capabilities. Whether or not they're appropriate, dunno, but it's free so maybe worth a try. As a general viewer, browser, etc., I like it. I've bought Fast Stone but have pretty much migrated to XnView MP. They're pretty close, though although XnView runs on Linux, Windows and Mac, not just Windows.

bakubo said:

I think that the free Adobe Bridge has a print module that is similar to the one in Lightroom Classic. I have not used it, but that is what I recall reading somewhere.

Click to expand...

I saw this video about Adobe Bridge today and he shows the print module (cued up about 5 minutes in):

charlyw64 said:

newmikey said:

Lastly the few shots you have in your gallery on dpr don't really show off any specific raw conversion skills either.

Click to expand...

You are free to try to edit an image like the two bee flies on the blue violet columbine flower - Darktable will make a real hash of that because the blue color tones of the flower are captured well within the camera sensor color space but don't translate well into sRGB or AdobeRGB in their true intensity because they fall outside these color spaces. If you try to process such an image in a color space without a well defined transition to the output color space and without pegging down contrast early on all your edits will be a complete guesswork (and that's my main gripe with Darktable as you have no chance to adjust contrast, white balance and sharpening in a sensible way unless you resort to deprecated modules - and that means that your workflow will be voided when the version happens that escalates the "deprecated" to "removed", so for me Darktable has no future.

Click to expand...

Can you point me to the raw file?