Closed df79 closed 10 years ago
Yes an exhaustive test should be a good thing !
From my (temporary) point I think we should provide ufraw out of the box. It's "only" a GUI (and CLI via ufraw-batch) wrapper around dcraw but it play nicely with gimp (direct GUI integration) and offers common raw utilities. Darktable and rawtherapee seem really more advanced but user can download them from repos if they really need them.
In my experience, this year I had to deal with raw images more often than previously. The reasons are:
1) some institution we work for as Arc-Team (e.g. Innsbruck University) bought professional cameras and they want to keep a copy of their data in the original (raw) quality
2) some archaeological superintendence in Italy started to prefer digital data and digital photography respect the old systems. In some cases (e.g. Superintendence of Suedtirol) they pretend a copy of the raw format of the pictures
In both of this cases I worked with Darktable and the results were good.
Test and evaluation of 3 softwares for image file managing (in particular raw format): darktable (http://www.darktable.org/), Rawtherapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/) and UFRaw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/)