But for this test, I'm explicitly not doing anything particularly artistic merely some highlight recovery, shadow recovery, and local white balance adjustments. Obviously, I am a lot more proficient in my current tool, Darktable, than in any of the others. I would prefer a file-based workflow with edits stored alongside the RAW files 2, and I would prefer a perpetual license instead of a rental contract, but I'm willing to compromize on both if it's worth it 3. I have yet to see a photograph that was ruined by them, and most RAW developers seem to do a sufficient job at them. In contrast to most other comparisons on the 'net 1, I won't concern myself too much with sharpness and noise reduction and demosaicing. Must support my past and present cameras (Fuji X-E3, Ricoh GR, Pentax Q7, Nikon D7000)

Must run acceptably with files on a network share Must run acceptably on my Surface tablet And they all have rabid fan bases, and apparently unique rendering.

There are so many RAW developers out there. What if I could develop my pictures faster with a different RAW developer? What if they looked better than they do now? Questions like these keep me up at night.Ĭhoice. addEventListener ( 'DOMContentLoaded', function ( ) )

Rawtherapee vs darktable vs iridient