>>4461382
I've used Darktable and Digikam (mostly for organising) for a year or so now with no noticable lack of tools when I import a TIFF. Then again, once i'm in either of those I'm down to tweaking gamma curves or sharpness, not the fundemental edits. DPP4 loses a whole range of tools if you're editing a JPEG versus a RAW, but I can't remember the last time I did that / I don't know why I would even go that route.
>>4461444
Going from sRGB to AdobeRGB, or not having colour managed software (which sounds like was the case) defeats the entire purpose of using a colour space. I'd hope there's a workaround or there's a setting you missed, but... I believe you.
I owned an E-PL7 for a short while and putting aside the performance of that camera, I immediately noticed how much of a steaming pile of horse shit OM Workspace was. If that's your first party option, I unironically emplore you to buy something else. It's a shame though because the fundemental steps being done better in-house is a no brainer, but their software is just... bleh.
>>4461445
Before I started doing TIFFs with DPP, I was just trying the freeware's NR and that alone made me realise how terrible the software is for the most basic things. Like really, some peoples' workflow consists of
>import
>resize
>NR
>sharpen
>tweak contrast and gamma
a-wallah. Basic but effective and done quickly.
>OH wait the devs of this expect me to dial in specific parameters for each of those steps
>Alright let me save a workflow I can use as a template!
>OH wait, I used ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800 on that photo... hmm that looks fucking terrible. I'm just gonna go shoot jpeg.
Normally I'm fond of open source tools that just get the job done, but this ain't in chief.
