Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Editors (Photoshop, Vegas, Final Cut Pro, Kdenlive, etc.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 14, 2013, 8:05 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default opening RW2 in raw therapee

Hi,
I'm very confused. I installed RawTherapee, and tried opening and RW2, but I'm not sure what's happening.
Here's my problem.
I have my camera set to take RW2 and jpg. It put's them both in the same directory, same name, different extensions, on my SD card. When I open the SD directory in RawTherapee, all I see is the jpgs, no RW2s, even though I have all the extensions check in the File Browser preferences. And ,if I remove the jpgs from the folder, I do not see any files at all. What am I missing here?
Thanks,
..... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 15, 2013, 10:43 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You're not giving members very much information to go on. ;-)

For starters, what Operating System are you using (Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7, if you have a 32 bit or 64 bit version, what Service Pack level is installed, etc.)?

What camera brand/model are you using?

Are you using a card reader or a USB connected camera?

What version of RawTherapee are you using?

It's usually a very bad idea to try and look at images on a memory card for a variety of reasons. For one thing, if you're trying to look at them via a USB connected camera, it may not show up as a "USB Mass Storage Device" like a card reader would, and may need raw codecs installed before the OS can see anything other than jpeg files.

However, even if you are using a card reader, loading and saving images is going to be *VERY* slow compared to accessing them from your hard drive. So, it's always a good idea to copy images you want to work on into a folder on your hard drive first. Most memory cards are going to be extremely slow in comparison to a hard disk drive (especially via USB 2.0).

But, even if you have done that (copied them to a folder on your hard drive), the raw converter you're using will need to support your specific camera model (not just the file extension), as a raw converter will need to have support for a specific camera's files to convert them (you see changes in how the files are laid out with different camera models with raw files, even if the file extension is the same).

So, if you're trying to use an older version of RawTherapee with a newer camera model, it may not have support for it included yet. But, I'd still expect to see the files show up (only giving you an error when you try to open one if it's unsupported) if you're using a USB Mass Storage device (card reader, etc.).

With a USB attached camera, all bets are off (sorry, most newer cameras will not act as USB Mass Storage Devices and will only use the newer PTP protocol instead, which requires codecs to be installed with support for your camera to browse folders with Window's built in folder browse features that may apps are using, unless you're using an application designed to work via PTP with that specific camera model's file types).

I'd give a lot more detail on your setup for better responses. But, if you're using one of the newer 4.x versions of RawTherapee, you're probably trying to do something like access the images from a USB connected camera set to use PTP (versus USB Mass Storage) and don't have the needed codecs installed for the Operating System to recognize the files using Windows Explorer's folder browse features (which many applications are going to rely on).

So, use a card reader (which does act as a USB Mass Storage device so you can see all file types without needing any extra codecs or drivers) and copy the files to a folder on your hard drive for starters. Then, see if Raw Therapee can see them. If not, you probably installed an older version without support for your camera model (as 4.0.48 for 32 Bit XP type Operating Systems came out in September, and 4.0.79 for 64 Bit Operating Vista and Win 7 came out in October, and those should support most newer cameras). If not, you may need to use an even newer beta build of it. With most applications, you can find the version number under the Help Menu somewhere (usually Help>About).

I suspect you just installed an older version of it without support for your camera model (did you get it from their downloads page or somewhere else -- as it's better to get it directly from the developer's site?); and/or are trying to read the files from a USB connected camera without any support to act as a USB Mass Storage Device if the files don't show up at all when you're browsing for them (since Windows Explorer and apps that rely on it for browsing folders will *not* be able to see raw files from a USB connected camera if it's setup for PTP, unless you have raw codecs that support the camera installed).

Basically, many newer cameras only work with PTP protocol (they don't actually work like a USB attached storage device like a card reader or hard drive), and in order to support anything other than jpeg files, codecs for raw files will need to be installed in the Operating System for Windows to see them. So, it's always best to use a card reader and copy your files to a folder on your PC's hard drive first (especially for performance reasons, as accessing files on a memory card is going to be *VERY* slow in comparison to a hard drive anyway).

Some cameras have a USB connection type setting in their setup menu (so you can change them to be USB Mass Storage so you can see all file types without codecs when browsing folders from Windows). But, some cameras don't (they only work as PTP). Without knowing what camera model you're using, we can't tell. But, in any event, it's always best to copy the files to your hard drive first anyway (as trying to work on files located on a memory card is going to be very slow, especially via USB 2.0)

Again, I'd give a lot more detail about your setup for starters, like your Operating System (32 bit XP, 32 Bit Vista, 32 Bit Win 7, 64 Bit Vista, 64 Bit Win 7, etc., Camera Brand/Model, Raw Therapee version (4.0.48, 4.0.79, etc.), and if you're trying to use a card reader versus USB connected cameras; as you're giving members here *very* little information to help you troubleshoot the issue. My gut feeling is that you're just trying to view the images from a card in a USB connected camera (versus card reader) that has it's USB port set to use PTP (again, if so, Windows Explorer and apps that rely it would only see the jpeg files, not the raw files without codecs for the camera model installed).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2013, 9:04 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi Jim,
"I suspect you just installed an older version of it without support for your camera model..." I think you hit the nail on the head. I had an older version of Raw Therapee installed. When I installed a later version (3.0.1.0), it showed my RW2 files. I should have suspected this, because other apps on my system were able to convert the RW2s; but the version I first had, although showing an option for RW2s, did not convert mine, undoubtedly for the reasons you stated.
Just for your information, I'm running XP SP3, and reading them from the Scandisk 5 in 1 reader. (I never use my camera for downloading files, mainly because it uses battery life.) Lumix FX150
I had a quick look at Raw Therapee, and it's a bit intimidating ...... so many functions. I'm thinking that something a little simpler might be all I need.
Thanks again for your help, and the wealth of information you've provided. I appreciate it.
...... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2013, 12:46 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,212
Default

RT does take some time to learn. Most of the Raw developers are pretty complex, though. The biggest reason for using Raw in the first place is to get the best from your camera, so it can be worthwhile to take the time to figure it out.
That said, if your main reason for using Raw is to get better shadow and highlight detail, there is a somewhat simpler way. I recently purchased Paint Shop Pro X5, and found it has a feature to automatically split a Raw file into three, developing one for shadow detail, one normally, and one for highlights, then combines the three for a (psuedo) HDR shot. There are adjustments you can make to each, if you want, and further adjustments to the combined shot.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2013, 1:51 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
gjtoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 6,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
RT does take some time to learn. Most of the Raw developers are pretty complex, though. The biggest reason for using Raw in the first place is to get the best from your camera, so it can be worthwhile to take the time to figure it out.
That said, if your main reason for using Raw is to get better shadow and highlight detail, there is a somewhat simpler way. I recently purchased Paint Shop Pro X5, and found it has a feature to automatically split a Raw file into three, developing one for shadow detail, one normally, and one for highlights, then combines the three for a (psuedo) HDR shot. There are adjustments you can make to each, if you want, and further adjustments to the combined shot.

brian
I picked up X6 about a week ago and am just discovering this feature, Brian. Compared to the ultra-botched X3, X6 is Nirvana. Of course, compared to X3, almost anything is Nirvana.
__________________
Gary ---- "The best camera is the one you have with you."
<><~~~~~~~~~~~
Pentax K-70 ~ Panasonic FZ1000
My Gallery

--
Hebrews 13:3
gjtoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2013, 2:11 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinnen View Post
Hi Jim,
"I suspect you just installed an older version of it without support for your camera model..." I think you hit the nail on the head. I had an older version of Raw Therapee installed. When I installed a later version (3.0.1.0), it showed my RW2 files. I should have suspected this, because other apps on my system were able to convert the RW2s; but the version I first had, although showing an option for RW2s, did not convert mine, undoubtedly for the reasons you stated.
Just for your information, I'm running XP SP3, and reading them from the Scandisk 5 in 1 reader. (I never use my camera for downloading files, mainly because it uses battery life.) Lumix FX150
Where in the world are you finding these older versions, as even the "later version (3.0.1.0)" you just mentioned is very outdated now.

Look... use the download links from their official site to get the latest versions of it, as there is no telling how much malware and adware you're liable to find installed if you're downloading software from other sources (not to mention that you're installing *very* old versions of it, and newer versions are likely to have a much improved user interface, etc.).

My advise is to *NEVER* download and install software from sources that you are not positive are reputable (and personally, I even avoid sites like CNET's download.com as they tend to use installers that tack on unwanted browser toolbars and adware unless you're careful to "opt out"), and to stick with the download links from the software developer's web site whenever possible.

Installing browser toolbars and adware is how many download sites make money. Even the so called reputable download sites are doing that kind of thing anymore. Always get software you want to install directly from the developer's web site whenever possible.

XP SP3, huh?

You'll want to download and install 4.0.11.48 for use with 32 Bit Windows XP. See their downloads page here:

http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Here's a direct link to that download:

http://rawtherapee.com/releases_head..._4.0.11.48.zip

It's a .zip file. So, just unzip it and run it's installer to get the latest version for 32 Bit XP (Raw Therapee 4.0.11.48).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2013, 3:28 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi Jim,
I downloaded the '3' version from the site you mention (http://rawtherapee.com/downloads). I filled out the three fields at the top of the page and it came up with two choices, a version '2' and a version '3'. I assumed that those were my choices (using xp and all). I'll try the version you suggest. Thanks.
I don't like the installers either, and strictly avoid them, but they do seem to be getting more prevalent.
"XP SP3, huh?" Do I detect a note of contempt in your voice.
(No offense taken). I like XP, but then I like Art Deco and Art Nouveau. .
Thanks Brian/Gary. Yes..... that's exactly what I'm trying to do, take advantage of the 'raw' exposure range, that I would otherwise obtain by (trying to) combining two or three JPEGs. However, I'm trying to avoid springing for software.
At the current time I'm trying out Scarab Darkroom 2 Lite. It seems promising, but I really haven't explored it fully yet.
Thanks for your help.
...... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2013, 3:47 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

If so (contempt in my voice regarding XP SP3) it wasn't intended. I was just trying to figure out the needed version of Raw Therapee for the OS you're using. XP is a very fast OS and works fine for most purposes.

But now that you bring it up, security with XP may be an issue in the near future. IOW, it's probably a very bad idea to use XP for much longer, as Microsoft will no longer supply security patches for it after April 2014. That means that when Microsoft fixes security related bugs applicable to multiple Windows versions, criminals will figure out which ones are also applicable to XP, and design malware to take advantage of the unpatched vulnerabilities in XP (probably the "drive by" kind so that you may end up with a compromised computer just by visiting a web site that's designed to take advantage of vulnerabilities).

We're already seeing cases where you can't get newer browser versions and plugins for XP in some cases, leaving it more open to known vulnerabilities compared to other operating systems, and those problems will be worse after Microsoft discontinues further updates to XP in April.

So, it's probably a good idea to think about migrating to a different operating system before XP updates from Microsoft are discontinued in April 2014. Personally, I'd just move to one of the popular linux distributions, and find one that would work with your hardware OK. I have computers that I don't even bother to leave Windows installed on anymore (for example, a 6 year old laptop my wife is using right now only has linux on it, as I removed Windows to save the space it was wasting). Even though I have Windows installed on my desktops (64 Bit Win 7, and now 64 Bit Win 8 on my newest computer), I rarely use it (I use linux >99% of the time,. But, I'd be very concerned about booting into XP after Microsoft discontinues updates to it. IOW, I rarely boot into Windows for anything. But, if I did need to use it for something, using XP would concern me after updates are stopped by Microsoft in April.

But, if you can't do without Windows and want to keep the same hardware, it may be a good idea to think about upgrading to Win 7 or newer before Microsoft support for XP is discontinued.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2013, 8:00 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi Jim,
I was just kidding about the contempt thing. I'm always 3 steps behind the crowd, in most ways. My friends say that my computer is a boat anchor. It's about 10 years old, but it works well.
Yes.... I have thought about going to something other than XP. I knew that windows was stopping updates but I figured that it wouldn't matter to me, since I never download them anyway. If I have problems that I can't resolve, which is rare, I simply put one of my many backup drives in, clone, and rock on. I wasn't aware of the senario you're referring to, which puts a target on XP's back. You're right XP is very fast. I guess I'll have to consider doing something. So, you think that there are non Microsoft OSs out there that are as functional as XP?? I'll have to convert my wife's system over too..... that will be a problem, she will not want to change. Hey.... but I'm the IT guy here ;<). Which OS would you suggest I look at?
..... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2013, 8:26 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Hardware specs (CPU, memory, hard drive size, video card chpset, etc.)?

There are hundreds (probably more like thousands) of different linux distributions available anymore.

Most more featured distros are going to be more comfortable with 1GB or more of memory, relatively modern CPU and video card chipset, etc..

But, if you're trying to use a 10+ year old computer, then a "leaner" choice is probably a better bet. So, I'd give more info on the exact hardware these older PCs have included for better responses (CPU model, memory installed, etc.).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:09 PM.