4 ms·

> Even open source programs, like RawTherapee and Darktable, use entirely different and incompatible approaches, algorithms, and instructions. `git checkout v3

> Even open source programs, like RawTherapee and Darktable, use entirely different and incompatible approaches, algorithms, and instructions. `git checkout v3.0.2` `./build.sh` No idea what you're talking about. As long as you have your RAWs and your sidecar file you can trivially reproduce the picture, at least that's how it works in darktable. Hell, the old code that is deprecated and "hidden" in the newest versions is actually all still there and if you import your stuff in the newest version it is practically guaranteed to look exactly the same. In fact there is a CI system that checks for delta-Es in each release.

bscphil 6y ago
I mean that RawTherapee and Darktable don't use the same code as each other at all. The instructions (usually sidecar files) the tell each program what to do to generate the output are completely incompatible. > the old code that is deprecated and "hidden" in the newest versions is actually all still there and if you import your stuff in the newest version I'd expect this to be the case with any good photo developer, but it doesn't pay to take chances. There have been significant bugs in the past with DNG files, for example, and different bugs could be introduced in the future, or bugs you didn't know about could be fixed, and so on. There's a lot of stuff that could go wrong. It's good to be able to just tar the source code.
- hatsunearu 6y ago
  > I mean that RawTherapee and Darktable don't use the same code as each other at all. The instructions (usually sidecar files) the tell each program what to do to generate the output are completely incompatible. I'll be honest, this is probably the most ridiculous argument against anything I've ever heard on hacker news. This is like saying C/gcc sucks because Javascript exists. What the fuck? > I'd expect this to be the case with any good photo developer, but it doesn't pay to take chances. There have been significant bugs in the past with DNG files, for example, and different bugs could be introduced in the future, or bugs you didn't know about could be fixed, and so on. There's a lot of stuff that could go wrong. It's good to be able to just tar the source code. So... it's a non issue? I don't even...
  - bscphil 6y ago
    > I'll be honest, this is probably the most ridiculous argument against anything I've ever heard on hacker news. This is like saying C/gcc sucks because Javascript exists. What the fuck? Well, sorry you feel that way. /s The difference is that C and Javascript are widely implemented open standards. Lightroom, Darktable and RawTherapee are using three different opaque, undocumented approaches to developing raw images. Neither one has been reimplemented in other software, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to actually do that, because of all the specificity and quirks. You basically need the original software, which means making sure you can still compile it, making sure you have a platform it can run on, and so on. This is more complexity than most people ordinarily expect when they talk about "backing up photos", and that's exactly my point. > So... it's a non issue? I don't even... I should probably not even bother responding, since you already showed with your original comment that you didn't bother to even read my post, but I really don't get this. I explained a very specific issue: that there's a lot of complexity to developing raw photos, which means you have to take extra steps to make sure your edits are properly backed up. Open source software has a distinct advantage because you can archive a copy of the software yourself, but it doesn't change the fact that you do need the original software. And in fact you might need the same version, that's what the example of DNG conversion is supposed to illustrate. This is ... the opposite of a non-issue. In fact it's a very specific issue that I took quite a bit of time to explain in detail. Having to back up your software, or possibly even an entire VM along with your photos to make sure your edits are preserved, goes way beyond what your average person, or even many photographers think they have to do to keep proper backups.
    - hatsunearu 6y ago
      Actually this highlights a different issue--for photo editing, there isn't one "right" way to do things, like for instance text editing in like Microsoft Word or some shit. darktable has a very different approach compared to Lightroom for instance.
    - hatsunearu 6y ago
      > Neither one has been reimplemented in other software, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to actually do that, because of all the specificity and quirks. Why is this a problem? That's like saying "I need a good GPU to run this game, this sucks!" Well, no shit I guess? And it's not even close to that because you can always just buy/compile/compile the right version. And for darktable you don't even need that, backward compatibility is guaranteed. Also darktable has a rudimentary Lightroom to darktable conversion tool (never used it). > This is more complexity than most people ordinarily expect when they talk about "backing up photos", and that's exactly my point. Not sure about the other ones, but for darktable, it's as simple as keeping the XML alive. > I explained a very specific issue: that there's a lot of complexity to developing raw photos, which means you have to take extra steps to make sure your edits are properly backed up. Open source software has a distinct advantage because you can archive a copy of the software yourself, but it doesn't change the fact that you do need the original software. And in fact you might need the same version, that's what the example of DNG conversion is supposed to illustrate. If you don't like having a non-destructive copy, save a high quality JPEG with your edits. Also, I can't think of any other applications (not just photo editing) that you can easily have future-proof non destructive copies of whatever you need to save. For example: for audio, you can always just save a WAV or FLAC of your work, but you're still relying on the fact that your DAW workflow is still gonna exist 10 years in the future if you try to save your project as opposed to a mastered copy. Code is also similar. You can save a binary which will probably work, but if you want to save your repo, unless it has good package managers you might have issues later down the line, like that left-pad incident a while back. Hell, even for something completely different: language drifts over time, and reading Shakespeare is kind of hard unless you know how to read Middle English. And we don't seem to have a problem with forward compatibility, it's just a bit of a pain in the ass. I read it in High School and I didn't go insane. This isn't a photography issue, this isn't a software issue, this is a core part of human experience. > This is ... the opposite of a non-issue. In fact it's a very specific issue that I took quite a bit of time to explain in detail. Having to back up your software, or possibly even an entire VM along with your photos to make sure your edits are preserved, goes way beyond what your average person, or even many photographers think they have to do to keep proper backups. You don't need a VM, at least for darktable. You're making an issue that hasn't appeared but is potentially possible into a real issue for yourself. Maybe it will become an issue, but just figuring out how to install the old version is gonna be good enough. You do you mane. I'll stick with running dt natively and trusting the forward compatibility and OpenCL acceleration.

bscphil 6y ago

I mean that RawTherapee and Darktable don't use the same code as each other at all. The instructions (usually sidecar files) the tell each program what to do to generate the output are completely incompatible. > the old code that is deprecated and "hidden" in the newest versions is actually all still there and if you import your stuff in the newest version I'd expect this to be the case with any good photo developer, but it doesn't pay to take chances. There have been significant bugs in the past with DNG files, for example, and different bugs could be introduced in the future, or bugs you didn't know about could be fixed, and so on. There's a lot of stuff that could go wrong. It's good to be able to just tar the source code.

hatsunearu 6y ago
> I mean that RawTherapee and Darktable don't use the same code as each other at all. The instructions (usually sidecar files) the tell each program what to do to generate the output are completely incompatible. I'll be honest, this is probably the most ridiculous argument against anything I've ever heard on hacker news. This is like saying C/gcc sucks because Javascript exists. What the fuck? > I'd expect this to be the case with any good photo developer, but it doesn't pay to take chances. There have been significant bugs in the past with DNG files, for example, and different bugs could be introduced in the future, or bugs you didn't know about could be fixed, and so on. There's a lot of stuff that could go wrong. It's good to be able to just tar the source code. So... it's a non issue? I don't even...
- bscphil 6y ago
  > I'll be honest, this is probably the most ridiculous argument against anything I've ever heard on hacker news. This is like saying C/gcc sucks because Javascript exists. What the fuck? Well, sorry you feel that way. /s The difference is that C and Javascript are widely implemented open standards. Lightroom, Darktable and RawTherapee are using three different opaque, undocumented approaches to developing raw images. Neither one has been reimplemented in other software, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to actually do that, because of all the specificity and quirks. You basically need the original software, which means making sure you can still compile it, making sure you have a platform it can run on, and so on. This is more complexity than most people ordinarily expect when they talk about "backing up photos", and that's exactly my point. > So... it's a non issue? I don't even... I should probably not even bother responding, since you already showed with your original comment that you didn't bother to even read my post, but I really don't get this. I explained a very specific issue: that there's a lot of complexity to developing raw photos, which means you have to take extra steps to make sure your edits are properly backed up. Open source software has a distinct advantage because you can archive a copy of the software yourself, but it doesn't change the fact that you do need the original software. And in fact you might need the same version, that's what the example of DNG conversion is supposed to illustrate. This is ... the opposite of a non-issue. In fact it's a very specific issue that I took quite a bit of time to explain in detail. Having to back up your software, or possibly even an entire VM along with your photos to make sure your edits are preserved, goes way beyond what your average person, or even many photographers think they have to do to keep proper backups.
  - hatsunearu 6y ago
    Actually this highlights a different issue--for photo editing, there isn't one "right" way to do things, like for instance text editing in like Microsoft Word or some shit. darktable has a very different approach compared to Lightroom for instance.
  - hatsunearu 6y ago
    > Neither one has been reimplemented in other software, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to actually do that, because of all the specificity and quirks. Why is this a problem? That's like saying "I need a good GPU to run this game, this sucks!" Well, no shit I guess? And it's not even close to that because you can always just buy/compile/compile the right version. And for darktable you don't even need that, backward compatibility is guaranteed. Also darktable has a rudimentary Lightroom to darktable conversion tool (never used it). > This is more complexity than most people ordinarily expect when they talk about "backing up photos", and that's exactly my point. Not sure about the other ones, but for darktable, it's as simple as keeping the XML alive. > I explained a very specific issue: that there's a lot of complexity to developing raw photos, which means you have to take extra steps to make sure your edits are properly backed up. Open source software has a distinct advantage because you can archive a copy of the software yourself, but it doesn't change the fact that you do need the original software. And in fact you might need the same version, that's what the example of DNG conversion is supposed to illustrate. If you don't like having a non-destructive copy, save a high quality JPEG with your edits. Also, I can't think of any other applications (not just photo editing) that you can easily have future-proof non destructive copies of whatever you need to save. For example: for audio, you can always just save a WAV or FLAC of your work, but you're still relying on the fact that your DAW workflow is still gonna exist 10 years in the future if you try to save your project as opposed to a mastered copy. Code is also similar. You can save a binary which will probably work, but if you want to save your repo, unless it has good package managers you might have issues later down the line, like that left-pad incident a while back. Hell, even for something completely different: language drifts over time, and reading Shakespeare is kind of hard unless you know how to read Middle English. And we don't seem to have a problem with forward compatibility, it's just a bit of a pain in the ass. I read it in High School and I didn't go insane. This isn't a photography issue, this isn't a software issue, this is a core part of human experience. > This is ... the opposite of a non-issue. In fact it's a very specific issue that I took quite a bit of time to explain in detail. Having to back up your software, or possibly even an entire VM along with your photos to make sure your edits are preserved, goes way beyond what your average person, or even many photographers think they have to do to keep proper backups. You don't need a VM, at least for darktable. You're making an issue that hasn't appeared but is potentially possible into a real issue for yourself. Maybe it will become an issue, but just figuring out how to install the old version is gonna be good enough. You do you mane. I'll stick with running dt natively and trusting the forward compatibility and OpenCL acceleration.