[T Evergreen]

Hi Frank - @Riggomatic has suggested YouTube videos, and they're a great place to get tutorial information. But don't forget the extensive and quite helpful darktable manual, here:

https://www.darktable.org/usermanual/en/

Whilst it might not be as intuitive or fun as video tutorials, it covers a lot of ground and is well worth reading. At the very least, it's useful to dip into - though I'd recommend you try to read it. It's better than most manuals for commercial software, in my opinion

Along these lines regarding learning Darktable, when in the lighttable or darkroom module, if you click on the question mark that's located above and to the right of the image(s), and then click on a module/control element, e.g., Exposure, the appropriate section of the user's manual will open on a new web page.

[Frank29]

Along these lines regarding learning Darktable, when in the lighttable or darkroom module, if you click on the question mark that's located above and to the right of the image(s), and then click on a module/control element, e.g., Exposure, the appropriate section of the user's manual will open on a new web page.

Thank you for all the info regarding the manual. I also should have known youtube has tutorials on it! I'll get reading and watching....

[jcdoss]

Which of these options offers the most Lightroom-like keyword catalog experience? Preferrably with hierarchies?

[wm_brant]

I cast my vote for darktable, which I've been using for about a year.

I used Lightroom for a little over a year, then tried Rawtherapee for a while and finally landed on darktable - which works for me. While all three tools 'worked' for me, I found myself the happiest with darktable.

I'd like to add a caveat on my selection, which really isn't a negative - it's just that I don't feel that there is such a thing as a single 'best' tool which actually is the best choice for everyone. I believe that there is an optimal choice for me (and my existing knowledge, skill, and needs as of now) and there is an optimal choice for you (ditto) - but what is optimal for me may not be what is optimal for you.

Someone asked about how to learn darktable - I'd like to mention that there is an available $30 online course that covers darktable, Rapid Photo Downloader and a bit of Gimp at Riley Brandt Photography. For the record, outside of me paying for and taking the course, I have no ties to Riley Brandt or the firm that hosts the course. I found that taking the course helped me get up-to-speed on the essential parts of darktable a lot quicker than just playing around with the tools would have. And while darktable has added a few features since the course was made, I don't think that affects the value of the course much. If you're wanting a bit of a boost up the darktable learning curve, I feel that the course is worth a few $$$.

[BigMackCam]

Which of these options offers the most Lightroom-like keyword catalog experience? Preferrably with hierarchies?

To my knowledge, none of them.

I use digiKam 5 for library management. Although it has a reasonable (if slow) raw converter and fairly decent image editor built in, I rarely use that. I'm only interested in its library management features... and, thankfully, they're very good. From digiKam, I select the image I want to work on and use "Open with" to launch darktable, RawTherapee, GIMP etc.

[T Evergreen]

Here's another series of tutorials that will get you well into using darktable --

You Tube

You Tube

[emalvick]

Lightzone

This is my favorite in terms of free. I rarely use free though.

[BigMackCam]

This is my favorite in terms of free. I rarely use free though.

With respect, may I ask why? Is it because you find the paid options better for your particular application, or some other reason? I'm interested, having come from the Adobe Lightroom world for several years and moved to other tools. I totally accept they're not for everyone, but with some adaptation and re-learning, I found the free, open-source options just as good in most cases and better in others so far as image processing is concerned. Only in the library management area did I find some of the open-source tools lacking...

[emalvick]

With respect, may I ask why? Is it because you find the paid options better for your particular application, or some other reason? I'm interested, having come from the Adobe Lightroom world for several years and moved to other tools. I totally accept they're not for everyone, but with some adaptation and re-learning, I found the free, open-source options just as good in most cases and better in others so far as image processing is concerned. Only in the library management area did I find some of the open-source tools lacking...

I work about 60 hours a week on my day job, which has nothing to do with photography, but it hampers my hobby quite a bit. I have a 3 year old daughter, so my primary goal in photography is to be efficient with the PP side. I like shooting RAW, but if I can help it I don't want to spend a ton of time with each photo.

I started with my dSLR right as I was finishing grad school, so I started with RT as my processing software, but I also picked up LR 3 because I could get a student discount. LR was more usable for me than RT. I do think anyone can learn a software, and I've done it a few times. In that era I had also gotten quite proficient at SilkyPix because it was relatively affordable and provide some intuitive lens and perspective correction features. But LR stuck with me until about a year of version 6 and the subscription service.

At that point child, job, and just taking photos were important, and time was scare. I could learn any software, but at this point, the effort I need to learn a program is an important factor into what I choose. I have always had a copy of RT, but I've never found it too intuitive and its workflow has never been something I could make too efficient. And, after giving up on LR, I tried about 10 different programs, and DxO is what really latched onto me for ticking off all the boxes that were important to me, including not having to spend a lot of time learning. 99% of the time, I can process a photo in DxO within 1 minute, and its power is really in its ability to automatically adjust my photos for lens distortion and perspective. In fact, it does better than even LR could in that department for my collection of lenses and cameras. RT is now reserved for the 1% that I can't get through DxO to my liking, and in many of those cases, I export a Tiff and bring it back to DxO to finish.

So, ultimately, my time is more valuable than the money. Really, if I could bring myself to relying on JPG and not shooting RAW, I could really win. I just can't do it right now. I make just enough mistakes (especially shooting family) that I need the RAW files.

To get to a punch line for your question, it isn't because the software is free that I don't use it. It's just that for me, my workflow, and my tastes, I like DxO better. Conversely, I love hugin which is free and open source (admittedly difficult to use), but when I really need to stitch a panorama, I can 100% get an output I like. I learned it when I was a student, but I also rarely use it because I rarely shoot panoramas anymore.

[BigMackCam]

To get to a punch line for your question, it isn't because the software is free that I don't use it. It's just that for me, my workflow, and my tastes, I like DxO better. Conversely, I love hugin which is free and open source (admittedly difficult to use), but when I really need to stitch a panorama, I can 100% get an output I like. I learned it when I was a student, but I also rarely use it because I rarely shoot panoramas anymore.

Thanks, that's interesting - and makes perfect sense

[emalvick]

Thanks, that's interesting - and makes perfect sense

Yes, my discovery way back to when I was an undergrad and I could only afford free software, was that a lot of software you got what you paid for. I also quickly discovered that open source software is a lot different than other freeware, and consequently focused my attentions to Open Source options for everything (Sourceforge was a gold mine). I am a Windows user and have been, but never-the-less, there is a lot of good stuff out there. I also found that there was a lot of not-so-good stuff, or more often, good stuff that ends its life and never moves on.

I'm not a developer, and I never learned enough to compile my own software or work from the code.

But going back to open source, the places where even the best open source (or just free) software often lacks the most are in documentation (some of the best and widest user bases end up with good information through youtube and end users) and plain usability. I get why, and in the case for software like RT, or Hugin, the lack of simplicity reflects the tons of features that commercial software doesn't always make available (usually through assumptions or buried options).

But, going back to RT, I never could wrap my head around a lot of the terminology because it was just too technical and more about aspects of image processing that most typical users don't know. I'll admit that even getting into color profile details are barely in my grasp, and I really only learn enough to calibrate my monitor. I've generally appreciated software that focuses more in terms of photography terms or at least on a broader scale. I understand more about how RT operates now than I did when I originally was using it for most my work. But, it still lacks a few features (I think purposely relegating the types I want to software like Gimp) and it just isn't too efficient. I will happily admit, that it is one of the best Open Source projects out there across all software (photography or otherwise).

[The Squirrel Mafia]

^ I definitely agree with you there. I've been playing with RT for the past 4 years now & even then, I still haven't learned everything about it. I also think that it has way too many options/settings at times, but I can see them being useful to some people. I do agree about the lack of information, or it being too technical, or too vague.

I have a RawTherapee thread that has a bunch of .pp3 files to get a new user started. They will produce results similar to what the camera's jpeg engine puts out, but with more retention to fine detail as the ISO climbs. I think the majority will be pleased by just applying the .pp3 file with the correct ISO & getting the image out of it just like that. Further tweaks will need to be done by the user if they're trying to achieve something else.

I've been compiling my own builds for the past year now. They do function much better & faster on my machine, versus downloading builds from their website. I've even compiled a version to use the Standard tone curve by default instead of the Film-like tone curve. That Film-like tone curve throws the images off a bit. I don't really like using it. I'm also very big into using sRGB color space, although the .pp3 files that I've made use ProPhoto, since a lot of people seem to prefer that color space. The ProPhoto color space tends to oversaturate or throw some colors off a bit. The camera can only shoot in sRGB or Adobe RGB anyway, so that's why I stick to sRGB. It produces better results for me. I have my own personal set of sRGB .pp3 files that I use all the time. Sorting by ISO, applying .pp3 files to multiple images at the same time, & batching the images on RawTherapee is crazy easy. It's probably the easiest batch software that I've ever used.

I use DxO on occasion. I have presets for it too. It's very easy to sort by ISO & apply presets & then spit them all out in a batch. The only thing that I have noticed is that some images come out really dark. I'll have to go back & fix the exposure at times. I don't know why it does that, but outside of that, DxO does spit out some very nice images.

But yeah! I use RawTherapee almost 90% of the time. The other 10% is occupied by DxO & PDCU5. One of these days I'll eventually get around to learning darktable & maybe even creating some "dstyles" with different ISO settings too. Who knows when I'll get around to it. Hopefully someone else beats me to that.

[BigMackCam]

Yes, my discovery way back to when I was an undergrad and I could only afford free software, was that a lot of software you got what you paid for. I also quickly discovered that open source software is a lot different than other freeware, and consequently focused my attentions to Open Source options for everything (Sourceforge was a gold mine). I am a Windows user and have been, but never-the-less, there is a lot of good stuff out there. I also found that there was a lot of not-so-good stuff, or more often, good stuff that ends its life and never moves on.

I'm not a developer, and I never learned enough to compile my own software or work from the code.

But going back to open source, the places where even the best open source (or just free) software often lacks the most are in documentation (some of the best and widest user bases end up with good information through youtube and end users) and plain usability. I get why, and in the case for software like RT, or Hugin, the lack of simplicity reflects the tons of features that commercial software doesn't always make available (usually through assumptions or buried options).[/HL]

Development of the more popular open-source projects moves quite quickly. Darktable, for instance, is far more capable now than it was two or three years ago. I'm sure the same can be said for RawTherapee. Also, there are now parallel Windows implementations of these tools at the same version numbers. Current darktable and RawTherapee Windows builds look identical (or almost identical) to their Linux counterparts. Windows users no longer suffer ugly beta versions of these open-source tools. They're just as well catered for as the Linux crowd. And there's no need to compile... these tools can be downloaded and installed just as easily as commercial products. So far as documentation is concerned, I've found the online Darktable documentation to be infinitely more readable and useful than anything I've read for Lightroom without having to buy third party books. I can't speak for RawTherapee here, but it seems to me the documentation and information is out there, just as it is for Lightroom.

But, going back to RT, I never could wrap my head around a lot of the terminology because it was just too technical and more about aspects of image processing that most typical users don't know. I'll admit that even getting into color profile details are barely in my grasp, and I really only learn enough to calibrate my monitor. I've generally appreciated software that focuses more in terms of photography terms or at least on a broader scale. I understand more about how RT operates now than I did when I originally was using it for most my work. But, it still lacks a few features (I think purposely relegating the types I want to software like Gimp) and it just isn't too efficient. I will happily admit, that it is one of the best Open Source projects out there across all software (photography or otherwise).

I'm in a different situation to you. I'm divorced (hence, single), my son is grown up and I no longer have to go to work every day. I have a lot more time on my hands (although it doesn't always feel that way!! ), and I can use some of that time to learn different software. Coming from Lightroom, I found darktable surprisingly easy to begin with, though it took me some time to become familiar with some of the more important tools. I'm still relatively new to the recent versions of RawTherapee, but I'm quickly adapting to this too. BUT... I see raw conversion and post-processing as being equally important to photographic technique, so I'm prepared to invest time in learning it. And whilst I applaud efficiency in workflow, and would strive for that, I'm perfectly happy to use multiple tools if combinations of them give me what I need. As such, I use digiKam (for library management), darktable - and occasionally RawTherapee - for raw conversion and processing, and GIMP for image editing. I use Hugin too for very specific use cases. Now, I can see why that might seem daunting to some, yet it's really not. Typically, my workflow would include digiKam, darktable and GIMP... which is only one tool more than Lightroom plus Photoshop Elements (my old setup), and it all integrates just as well.

[emalvick]

I don't disagree that PP is important (thus the earlier comment about still using RAW), although I am not sure it is equally important to technique but that is perhaps because I am thinking nitpicky. After-all poor technique cannot be overcome by PP but if you have good technique, you can overcome bad PP. But that is somewhat a half-empty vs. half-full anyway.

I also don't disagree that there is a lot of lacking to LR. The key on using LR when I did was that it was easy without needing a lot of how-to or manuals. I know it has its flaws, but it had a few key features that helped with the issues I saw most important. But when I found DxO, I found my PP improved immensely, and it keeps my workflow to my catalog software and just DxO. I rarely need more software, and that is probably the biggest savings and efficiency gain.

[BigMackCam]

I don't disagree that PP is important (thus the earlier comment about still using RAW), although I am not sure it is equally important to technique but that is perhaps because I am thinking nitpicky. After-all poor technique cannot be overcome by PP but if you have good technique, you can overcome bad PP. But that is somewhat a half-empty vs. half-full anyway.

Perhaps poorly worded on my part... What I meant was, taking the photo isn't the whole enchilada. Whether we rely on the in-camera JPEG engine or raw development software such as LR, DxO, darktable, RT etc. or take it further still with image editing tools such as Photoshop or GIMP, each photo requires some form of processing to end up with a good finished product. Just like a photo taken on 35mm film needs to be developed before it's usable. I'm not heavy-handed in raw development and post-processing, but - as a raw shooter - I couldn't do without it. It's an essential part of my workflow, and "essential" is about as important as it gets for me. A bad photo will still be a bad photo without post-processing, but a good photo can still be a bad photo without it, too

I also don't disagree that there is a lot of lacking to LR. The key on using LR when I did was that it was easy without needing a lot of how-to or manuals. I know it has its flaws, but it had a few key features that helped with the issues I saw most important. But when I found DxO, I found my PP improved immensely, and it keeps my workflow to my catalog software and just DxO. I rarely need more software, and that is probably the biggest savings and efficiency gain.

I like LR... always did. In fact, had Adobe not moved to a subscription model, I'd most likely have kept on using it, as it did much of what I needed, and did it well. After the subscription model came in, though, I looked elsewhere. DigiKam (for library management) and darktable (for raw development) work at least as well for me - but I appreciate they're not for everyone. And I understand how DxO might be right for you. You're certainly not alone in that respect