Open source post processing tools.

<p>I am curious if anyone on this board is using exclusively open source software to handle their photos once they get them off of the camera. I just wanted to outline the software I am using/have used before I get into some specifics.<br>

-The Gimp<br>

-Darktable<br>

-UFraw<br>

-Shotwell</p>

<p>I generally shoot jpegs, and that's okay for me, but I would like to experiment with raw files - I've managed to improve a jpeg or two using my limited, limited ability with the Gimp. I believe, (please educate me if I am way off of the mark) that if I were to shoot raw files I would have more options post processing wise. However, I am lazy, and not keen on processing individual files - I take hundreds of photos, if not thousands of photos, and many of them, I feel, are hardly worth archiving, much less post processing. I've read, that it is possible, using light room to apply batch white balance/exposure adjustments which is what got me cottoned onto Darktable, which I am sure gets a bit quicker to work with once I know more about it. I've also played around using UFraw to adjust raw files - it has nice integration with Gimp, but I am again at that processing individual file thing.</p>

<p>Anyways, I'm interested in learning about other people's open source workflow, or pieces of software that they're using.</p>

<p>I did a quick search and wasn't able to find a recent thread on this topic.</p>

<p>Thank you!<br>

Daniel</p>

<p>I run Linux and I used to use a combination of Picasa to organize images and GIMP with the UFraw plugin for editing. I tried out Digikam which is more of a workflow program like Lightroom. Ultimately I ended up spending some money and buying Bibble Lite which I am quite happy with. I still use GIMP when I need more advanced editing but I can do 95% of my manipulation just within Bibble.</p>

<p>Raw Therapee and Darktable are the 2 other workflow programs that I know of. I like Raw Therapee but I haven't tried Darktable. I thought Shotwell was more of an organizer and had very basic editing capabilities.</p>

<p>I use hugin for panorama stitching and qtpfsgui for HDR processing. I used to use Cinepaint (a GIMP fork) when I needed 16-bit editing.</p>

<p>I'm not entirely certain of what I gain from 16 bit editing which I am certain has been discussed in other threads....</p>

<p>Shotwell is definitely an organizer, I don't use it for editing at all, except to magically, lazily reduce the size of images I want to upload. I'll look into Bibble, and Raw Therapee (and maybe learning more about Darktable).</p>

<p>Thanks for your answers.</p>

<p>Before getting too far into the weeds, are you philosophically motived to use free (as in speech) software, or are you more about free (as in beer) software? If it's the former, you are a bit limited. If you're OK with the latter, there are more options. Even some of the camera manufacturers will provide you with free batch-capable processing software.</p>

<p>I've used most of them at some point. However, in terms of raw files when I use those, I'm not going to waste my time. My camera isn't open source, and I consider the raw image viewer/converter that came with it to be part of the camera. Mine's a Nikon, and so I use ViewNX 2. When I had a Canon S90 last year, I used DPP. Once I've got an image the way I want it with those, then I move on to open source software to view and make further preparations for web display, etc. It just takes too long and way too much work to do with an open source raw converter what I can do in seconds with ViewNX.</p>

<p>On the other side of the coin, I'm a decades-long Polaroid user(not to mention slide film), and I prefer the kind of "imperfect" photography that comes straight from the camera. When I'm in that mood with the digitoys, I just shoot JPEG. When I do, I don't do any further manipulation, except the minor adjustments that can be made in JPEGview (usually only contrast adjustment or desaturation), a free, open source viewer.</p>

<p>In the interest of full disclosure, I sometimes also use free but not open source programs such as Irfanview and FSviewer, and I've been a licensed user of Picture Window Pro for years. At one time, I needed that one to work with my film scans, and I just keep using it.</p>

<p>I stay well away from image organizers. I prefer to just organize my folders logically with the operating system's own file management. Image organizers just seem to confuse me.</p>

<p>I process my digital photos in groups based on date/event. I always shoot in raw. My photo workflow with Fedora is this:</p>

<ul>

<li>Connect camera; automatically download and rename with <a href="http://damonlynch.net/rapid/">Rapid Photo Downloader</a>. Photos go into a "to be processed" directory (photos go into subdirectory based on date)</li>

<li>I quickly go through (preview/delete) a set using <a href="http://geeqie.sourceforge.net/">Geeqie</a>.</li>

<li>Process raws using <a href="http://www.darktable.org/">Darktable</a>. Darktable is my bread and butter raw processor. I export jpegs from Darktable into a "to be tagged" directory. </li>

<li>Raws go into a "raw archive" directory. </li>

<li>Tag jpegs with Geeqie. Geeqie has an excellent tag/subtag module for this. Move files into "for export" directory. At this point, I backup all files to backup hard disk using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync">rsync</a></li>

<li>Export nice jpegs to <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/">Smugmug</a>. I use their printing service when applicable.</li>

<li>After export, I move the jpegs to the archive.</li>

</ul>

<p>Occasionally, I use Gimp for some burning/dodging, and selective sharpening. When applicable, I use enblend/enfuse/panotools/hugin for stitching or blending exposures. Fedora has nice color management tools as well.<br>

One last thing, for a cool open source monitor color calibration project see <a href="http://www.hughski.com/">http://www.hughski.com/</a></p>

<p>I just reread your OP. FYI, Darktable is great at applying changes to multiple raw files. For example, if you have a set of photos where the white balance is consistently too cold, you change the white balance in one of the raw files, then copy that file's "history stack" (which is no more than a selective history of edits made by you in darktable). Then just select all similar files and paste the history stack. It's very efficient.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, I've been using Darktable, but I'm not finding it particularly intuitive, however I will check out some tutorials as they have a pretty informative website. I feel like Raw Therapee might be a bit more promising - but not free and opensource.</p>

<p>Onto the free speech vs free beer question. My preference is free as in speech, but I will take free as in beer as a second choice. I'm not adverse to using software provided by the manufacturer, Nikon in this case, I just don't want to go through the hassle of running it in Wine or a VM.</p>

<p>I was posting originally to try and find out what other people are using, in order to see if I can improve my own workflow, so thanks guys!</p>

<p>Raw Therapee was originally closed source but as of version 3 it is released under the GPL and now open source.</p>

<p>Also other question, mildly off-topic, but open source/linux related: My d7000 is not treated as a usual USB mass transfer device. It is in fact staunchly ignored by the OS unless I mount it using gphotofs, or use gphoto2 to transfer files. Anyone else encounter this? Easier work arounds? The easiest way for me is to use the card reader on my computer, but when I travel I often use public terminals to move files off of the camera, and in some places public terminals don't have card readers.</p>

I use rawtherapee 3.0_2 (4.0.2 does not yet compile), ufarw, gimp, and Image::ExifTool on FreeBSD 8 to process Sony A700 raw files. For JPEG, GIF, PNG, and TIFF (non-raw) files, I use also geeqie, xv, and ImageMagick.

 

I had tried darktable, rawstudio, digikam recently. rawstudio was too rudimentary. Could not stand either or both of darktable & digikam; it|they were other was taking too long of a time to index|read|show preview of raw files compared to rawtherapee.

 

Both rawtherapee & ufraw allow to process files as a collection (or "batch"; rawtherapee via GUI, ufraw has ufraw-batch command). Further, I have multiple base profiles/configuration files (and curves too in case of ufraw) that can be applied to files with different characteristics. Only problems with rawtherapee 3 I have is that it does not propagate EXIF data to gimp and image is cropped around 16 px, unlike ufraw.

 

I use either of Sandisk or Lexar USB card readers to copy files from the card to the 'puter.

 

Basic Unix commands & utilities, Perl, exiftool, etc. take care of the rest.

<p>Regarding rawtherapee problems: If I care to have completely uncropped image (rare), I use ufraw. To propagate EXIF data from raw files to others, I use Image::ExifTool (or exiftool).

 

<p>

<hr>

 

<p>

Daniel, your camera might be in "Picture Transfer Protocol" (PTP) mode instead of "mass storage" mode. Check (elsewhere) if your camera has the option to switch to mass storage mode.

<p>Apparently it doesn't. Thank you guys for your answers.</p>

<p>Regarding your D7000, you are correct that there is not USB mode switch (therefore no mass storage mode). Personally, I rarely connect my camera to a computer anyway. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=738444&Q=&is=REG&A=details">Instead I use a little portable card reader like this one </a>(although mine came with an SD card).</p>