[Rainer]

As it seems ...



http://rawtherapee.com/



... the version 3.0.0 of this raw-converter is available now.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1311884979' post='10295']

As it seems ...



[url="http://rawtherapee.com/"]http://rawtherapee.com/[/url]



... the version 3.0.0 of this raw-converter is available now.

[/quote]





Auto-CA correction ... yummy. Hopefully it's faster now ...

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1311917374' post='10296']

Auto-CA correction ... yummy. Hopefully it's faster now ...





[/quote]



There are many lines in the what's new section mentioning the word "faster"...



But I will try this [url="http://avatechsupport.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-set-3gb-startup-switch-in.html"]4-Gigabyte Tuning in Windows[/url] after the installation...



Serkan

[Sylvain]

Hello fellow zoners,



Would any of you please highlight a few of the key advantages of raw therapee compared to LR 3 ?



I always get confused with DCRaw, RawTherapee, BibbleLabs, etc... and their respective strong points.



Greetings,



S.

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1311933334' post='10303']

Hello fellow zoners,



Would any of you please highlight a few of the key advantages of raw therapee compared to LR 3 ?



I always get confused with DCRaw, RawTherapee, BibbleLabs, etc... and their respective strong points.



Greetings,



S.

[/quote]



For starters... it's free... Recently I've tried it out (v.2.4), and I can say that it's quite surprising that it's a free tool... And now the latest version 3.0 has a sophisticated shadow & highlights tool, a purple fringe removal tool (which I couldn't locate yet) etc... Having these functionalities in raw data manipulation (before manipulation in PS) is very convenient actually.



I don't use LR3, but as far as I remember LR2 was almost the same as ACR. And RT v3.0 includes almost the same functionalities as ACR (leaving out the grad filter and spot removal).



The major drawback of RT is that it's deadly slow...



Serkan

[Sylvain]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1311937893' post='10304']

For starters... it's free... Recently I've tried it out (v.2.4), and I can say that it's quite surprising that it's a free tool... And now the latest version 3.0 has a sophisticated shadow & highlights tool, a purple fringe removal tool (which I couldn't locate yet) etc... Having these functionalities in raw data manipulation (before manipulation in PS) is very convenient actually.



I don't use LR3, but as far as I remember LR2 was almost the same as ACR. And RT v3.0 includes almost the same functionalities as ACR (leaving out the grad filter and spot removal).



The major drawback of RT is that it's deadly slow...



Serkan

[/quote]



Thanks Serkan but I meant more as "better demosaicing, noise control, ..." that is more about the engine itself than the functionalities & layout. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place.

[exuvia]

RT provides one of the finest demosaicing out there, free or commercial softwares mixed. I use Silkypix for my daily job: it is superior for the color rendition "picture straight open", so to speak. And tones and contrast and so on. But Silky falls on resolution. RT, on the other hand, is slower to get to the optimal color/exposure/contrast result, but it's way better for exploiting resolution. It reminds me the good old Raw Shooter. I use RT to develop my very big prints.

Try "Amaze" demosaicing algorythm and "RL deconvolution" kind of sharpening, you'll see by yourself.



Rel.2.4 was slow, I've been using the nightly of the 3 for a while now, and it is faster. Not deadly faster, but definitely faster, usable on my obsolete Pentium IV with 2 Gb RAM.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1311948283' post='10308']

RT provides one of the finest demosaicing out there, free or commercial softwares mixed. I use Silkypix for my daily job: it is superior for the color rendition "picture straight open", so to speak. And tones and contrast and so on. But Silky falls on resolution. RT, on the other hand, is slower to get to the optimal color/exposure/contrast result, but it's way better for exploiting resolution. It reminds me the good old Raw Shooter. I use RT to develop my very big prints.

Try "Amaze" demosaicing algorythm and "RL deconvolution" kind of sharpening, you'll see by yourself.



Rel.2.4 was slow, I've been using the nightly of the 3 for a while now, and it is faster. Not deadly faster, but definitely faster, usable on my obsolete Pentium IV with 2 Gb RAM.

[/quote]

Then develop in both, and use the colour from Silkypix and the detail from RT in photoshop?

[Rainer]

[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1311933334' post='10303']

Would any of you please highlight a few of the key advantages of raw therapee compared to LR 3 ?

[/quote]



I personally used RawTherapee with raw-images that contained blown highlights.

The highlight recovery was working very well in 2.4.1 (and I believe will do

as well in 3.0.0). As mentioned, so far, RT was too slow for larger amounts of

images (even on a fast PC) ... may be that has changed a bit.



Just my 2 cts...Rainer

[exuvia]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1311955346' post='10315']

Then develop in both, and use the colour from Silkypix and the detail from RT in photoshop?

[/quote]



explain that a little further, please... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':mellow:' />