I'm not a fan of desktop concepts like KDE, and do not run anything from icons on the desktop. I use Slackware, with FVWM2 for a window manager. In either case the best results are from images where the camera configuration (as opposed to the processing) was correct. The advantage with shooting RAW is that processing can be done right the first time. The problem with shooting JPEG is that things need fixing. ![]() Skip the idea that shooting RAW is to "fix" anything. I very much like paid Corel Aftershot Pro - it is new - I use the Windows version, there is a Linux version. My shooting buddy prefers RAW Studio on Linux Would you recommend other software? (Has to be Linux compatible) Raw Therapee is a parametric editor - it is not meant to go and change things one dot at a time Gimp has layers and masks and plugins and scripts. Gimp is a pixel level editor - you can go in an pick one pixel at a time and remove it or change the colour. Can Rawtherapee do all what GIMP can or would I still need to use GIMP? If you have an OK picture by your definition, you don't want to change it. If you have an OK car or an OK wife, would you bother to change it? This point is nothing to do with technology or photography it has to do with human assessment. ![]() Would it be true that those photographs that have issues, white balance, exposure, noise be the ones that truly benefit from using RAW. I've only played with this for around 30 mins. I'm a Linux user and I installed Rawtherapee. I really don't know how to use the software. I've read a few RAW vs JPEG arguments (sadly I've never come across a discussion).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |