#Rawtherapee vs ufraw full

After I've created all of the ID files - I have a Makefile that batch-converts everything using ufraw-batch (since ufraw isn't very well multithreaded, ufraw-batch basically processes one file on each core using make -j4 on my quadcore machine) - It seems the rough equivalent to this is darktable's export function, which DOES now allow me to set a separate export directory (it didn't seem to the first time I tried it 2 years ago)

I'm finding myself having to re-enable the exposure and WB modules with each image, and every time they start from defaults. ufraw saves the parameters from the last image saved when loading the next one - darktable is severely failing me here. *.ARW' Go through each image, adjusting WB and exposure (rarely anything else) - ufraw was set to save ID files only.

#Rawtherapee vs ufraw full

is it severely out of focus?) in digiKam Switch to commandline - create a subfolder called 'jpeg' in the folder full of Sony ARWs and out-of-camera JPEGs Run 'ufraw. UFRaw supports color management workflow based on Little CMS, allowing the user to apply ICC color profiles. It reads raw images using Dave Coffin's raw conversion utility - DCRaw. It can be used on its own or as a Gimp plug-in. My workflow before was: Sort from camera into folders using digiKam Do very rough culling (e.g. The Unidentified Flying Raw (UFRaw) is a utility to read and manipulate raw images from digital cameras. Yeah, I've been kicking it old-school for a while, to the point where ufraw's deficiencies with regards to handling recent Sonys (as in - severely underexposes by exactly 1 or 2 stops depending on camera model compared to dcraw, libraw's dcraw_emu, or darktable) was causing me to just fall behind on processing photos to the point where family were joking about me having write-only memory.