I know a non-trivial number of photogs who are windows based, considering they aim to be a LR replacement I don't see that happening anytime soon. Also probably going to be harder and harder to make that port happen the more development moves along.
Where did you even get this idea from? :)
On the other hand if you care about your free software attracting more users (some of whom could be developers who help push the software forward for everyone's benefit) then you should aim to target as many platforms as possible. I think there's a good correlation between successful open source products and the number of platforms they support.
Reading the blog and the comments (and the un-pulled GitHub pull request with changes to build under Windows) it seems the tone is that the developers aren't strongly motivated to get this working on Windows. They're entitled to their opinion, it's their software ... I just think they're thinking about this the wrong way. They seem to be thinking why should we do all this work for a platform we don't care about and carry the porting effort and the maintenance burden on our shoulders. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines or this is reminding me of other similar situations...
What's wrong with that?
Users of this software are the developers themselves, and and anyone else who is pleased with the creation. And, for free!
You can even change the creation to your own liking, so, if you need a Windows build, why you don't step in?
> The port to Gtk+3 widget set is yet another major change that you might or might not care about much. It's mostly to bring darktable up to date with recent changes in Gtk+ and simplify support for HiDPI displays (think Retina, 4K, 5K etc.)
Example: let's say contrast is increased during raw conversion. Parts of the image will be darker then they were before the edit. If you want to lighten up the the areas around the eyes in a portrait, they now contain less information and there will be a lot more visible noise by bringing up these shadows post raw conversion.
Why? Because of the UX. It completely breaks the creative workflow if you have to save two [or several] versions of an image and switch to another app to compose them together to see an effect applied locally. And then go back and repeat, if the strength is not to your liking.
Besides, Gimp doesn't support floating point image editing, so there is a also data loss involved if you use this app for compositing your RAW samples.
Krita & Natron seem the only alternatives on Linux unless I miss something.
On OSX, you could use Krita, DaVinci Resolve, Fusion, or Natron. Or pay for Photoshop.
In any case, switching apps sucks. :]
DT's authors understood this and added support for masks and module instancing. Plus a ton of blend modes.
That's what sets DT apart from the competition when it comes to 'how' you work.
As for the 'what': there is very little that the toolset of DT leaves to be desired. Even for professionals. :)
Now, if you tell me what color workflow tools DT lacks and what camera/sensor specific things you think are missing and what secret image processing sauce Photoshop supposedly has that DT is missing, I'm sure I will be able to refute every single one of your concerns.
On a sidenote, one of DT's authors is Johannes Hannika, PhD. Who works at Weta in Wellington NZ as a visual effects professional. Go figure. :)
The DNG software is not really relevant, as it's mainly used by smaller camera makers. Yeah, it would be niced if everyone adopted an open standard, but in the real world Nikon, Canon, Sony etc use their own RAW formats, and those are undocumented and proprietary. dcraw from Dave Coffin, on the other hand, is a small, mostly one man, project based on reverse engineering.
>Once the CFA bayer (or other mosaicing type) data is available (decrypted as it is crypted for quite a few camera makers), the demosaicing performed and the photo white-balanced and exported with its full dynamic range in a RGB colourspace, you have done most of the technical steps to start working creatively with it.
Having done "most of the technical steps to start working creatively" and having the best possible image resulting from the decoder is a totally different thing.
Choice of demosaicing algorithm (there's not an 1-1 mapping between a RAW file and that), and steps applied after that, like sharpening, color correction and some basic curves affect the end result in a big way, and are big parts of what makes a photo software good in its RAW handling. RAW images don't just get demosaiced and that's it before we view/start editing them.
That is actually not true. Yes, _some_ free/libre apps do use, but if you look closer, they probably make 1/2 of free software, and it's the least capable half.
It looks like they actually offer https, just don't force it. There's a good chance they're just testing it, seeing as their CA, Let's Encrypt, was made available to the public less than a month ago (and their cert's validity period starts on the LE public beta launch day, so it's unlikely they were part of the private beta):