mrtoml
Mancunian
Does anyone here use rawtherapee?
I like the interface and the tools do almost everything I need, but when I export a tiff or jpeg the images are not the same as on the screen in rt. They are more grainy and less contrasty. They look significantly different so the software is useless.
I am using xtrans raw files and my monitor is profiled.
I like the interface and the tools do almost everything I need, but when I export a tiff or jpeg the images are not the same as on the screen in rt. They are more grainy and less contrasty. They look significantly different so the software is useless.
I am using xtrans raw files and my monitor is profiled.
tbhv55
Well-known
I use RT a great deal, and have not encountered the problems that you describe.
One important thing, of which to be aware, is that - for certain image settings (all settings under the "Detail" tab, I believe) - RT only displays the actual applied results when viewing at 100%. Therefore, you should assess detail finishing of your image only at full-size, before exporting. Without knowing about this, it's possible, for example, to over-sharpen an image, inadvertently.
With regard to X-trans, I don't have a camera with an X-trans sensor, so I can't offer any suggestions on that.
If you don't get any success here on RFF, then I'd suggest joining the RT user forum, and asking for help there. Good luck.
One important thing, of which to be aware, is that - for certain image settings (all settings under the "Detail" tab, I believe) - RT only displays the actual applied results when viewing at 100%. Therefore, you should assess detail finishing of your image only at full-size, before exporting. Without knowing about this, it's possible, for example, to over-sharpen an image, inadvertently.
With regard to X-trans, I don't have a camera with an X-trans sensor, so I can't offer any suggestions on that.
If you don't get any success here on RFF, then I'd suggest joining the RT user forum, and asking for help there. Good luck.
mrtoml
Mancunian
Thanks. I have checked the images side by side on screen at 100% and there is noticeably more grain and less contrast in the tiff than the image displayed in RT.
I have also compared RT with LR5 and find that there is very little to choose between them, but at least LR outputs what I am seeing on my monitor to my printer so I think I will go back to that. It is a shame because RT is free and has a great set of tools, but I don't have time to sort out these problems.
I have also compared RT with LR5 and find that there is very little to choose between them, but at least LR outputs what I am seeing on my monitor to my printer so I think I will go back to that. It is a shame because RT is free and has a great set of tools, but I don't have time to sort out these problems.
colyn
ישו משיח
I'm a long time RT user myself and have never seen what you are experiencing so the only help I can give has already been given.
The RT forum will be a better shot at helping you..
The RT forum will be a better shot at helping you..
Addy101
Well-known
If anything, the output looks less noisy then the (less then 100%) view in RawTherapee.
Like it a lot, too bad it is quite slow.
Maybe it has to do with the X-Trans sensor. According to the developers: RAF = crash. DNG works - set compatibility mode to "DNG 1.4" and "Linear (demosaiced)"
source: RAWpedia
Like it a lot, too bad it is quite slow.
Maybe it has to do with the X-Trans sensor. According to the developers: RAF = crash. DNG works - set compatibility mode to "DNG 1.4" and "Linear (demosaiced)"
source: RAWpedia
mrtoml
Mancunian
I've gone back to LR5 and the nik plugins. These work but obviously they are not free 