This is being discussed in other threads, it’s the mask centric vs. module centric paradigm. Darktable is the latter.
That said, having a way to visually group / select /filter modules based on which mask they use could be a meaningful UX improvement that would not require a complete rework of the darkroom.
But you see, this is a good example of the tension between feature-full, customizable and polished. Something like this would require some instrumentation in the UI, which would make the interface more complex, so on one hand we are adding something that is supposed to make things easier for certain workflows, on the other one we are making the whole thing harder for everyone else. darktable is also often criticized for having too many configuration options, so even just adding one more of those could be received negatively. And what about a hidden (i.e., darktablerc only) option? Then it is hidden, non-discoverable, power-user only, non-newbie friendly.
(Not to mention the cost of implementing and mantaining it, but that is an orthogonal issue.)
I disagree. If your photo is underexposed, maybe you want to change the Exposure module, maybe the tone mapper, maybe Tone Equaliser, maybe who knows what. Perhaps you did a step where you reduced the exposure in Tone Equaliser and now you forgot that and just bumped up the Exposure, where it might have been better to adjust your TE parameters. Without a sight of what you did, you just can’t judge. Or you think “my photo looks a bit dark, I wonder why?” - and spend the next 10 minutes opening and closing modules hunting for the culprit.
(Parenthetically -the layer paradigm in Photoshop and Capture One is valuable - you can group a bunch of edits with a specific goal - “enhance the trees”, or whatever - and easily see the strategy of the edit and then the tactics (adjustments) used.)
CarVac’s point about needing guidance on which modules and in what order is the crux of it for me. The confusion in dfcsd’s screenshot isn’t really “too many modules” — it’s that nothing signals which three or four you actually start with.
What’s worked for me with newcomers (a lot of them Lightroom migrants on my channel) is throwing away the default module groups entirely and building a custom “favourites” set in pipeline order: exposure → white balance → color calibration → tone equalizer → color balance rgb. Once that’s in place, the wall of colour modules isn’t in your face anymore, and the order itself starts teaching the scene-referred logic — you’re working bottom to top the way the pipe actually runs.
It doesn’t fix the underlying naming/overlap issues people are rightly raising here, but it removes most of the day-to-day friction without waiting for a UI rebuild.
This can also be done to some extent using module labels. If you label “trees” all your modules that deal with the trees, then you can write “trees” in the search box and you will see only those.
C’mon. He already explained that he is not a native English speaker. I think we all recognise that often tone does not come across well on a forum, even when using a common first language, and make allowances. A good rule of thumb is to not assume the worst of the speaker.
They also said that they does not care to come across as rude and upset people, and they appear to have a pretty good command of English, so there’s that:
Fair point, this is reasonable. In my mind, this (as well as perhaps other points that cause the customisable-vs-polished interface tension) could be solved by having a choice in the settings. Darktable could come out of the box with a relatively accessible set of defaults, but a tickbox or two in the settings could reveal additional customisations in the main window UI. Taking this even further - not that I recommend it, but more thinking through what might be helpful for some - darktable could open on first run with only one tab of modules visible (presets, I think they’re called) that roughly mimic what Lightroom has. Then a single tickbox in the settings could turn it into what it is now, or even how this customisation step as a selection during first run with a wizard. Would be much more accessible for newcomers, and a click or two away from making it the customisable system it is now. (Again, I’m not proposing or asking this should be done, I think the way presets and module lists are now is completely fine and I would not want it simplified. But it might help a lot of people considerably?).
It still doesn’t matter where you changed it, only what the next step is. If you want whole image exposure you go to exposure, else you go to tone eq or another module. You can even change some color saturation in color eq and then use the rgb primaries module, it doesn’t really matter.
If you want a layout of always visible sliders/modifications then darktable is not for you, it’s as simple as that. In darktable you need to keep a mental model of what you changed or which modules you used, it’s not difficult but it is a new developing paradigm. It’s not much different than doing any other task where you need to keep in mind things you have done.
It obviously does. At a first glance you may think the whole image needs more exposure. If you can see that the current appearance is the result of TE, you may see that in fact it’s not the whole image, but a certain range of tones that need adjustment. This is a trivial example thought up on the fly.
While this sounds easy, it is incredibly complex to get this right. And that is the problem with most of the suggestions @Pascal_Obry mentioned: give me 10 devs for 2 year (if I recall correctly) we are talking then almost 40.000 hours of work!
And that is the problem with most suggestions, simple the amount of work involved.
I don’t now is darktable can be full run from cli in same way the GUI is running, (I am not talking exporting in the high quality export that can be done in cli)
But that would allow darktable to remain darktable but build another ui on top of it.
How can the state of a module change what an image needs? Just because you used tone eq previously doesn’t change the fact that the image needs whole image exposure increase. This is a thing you see with your eyes not based on the state of a module. I don’t see the problem here?
This doesn’t seem like it would happen in practice…I mean, if one starts out by using the exposure module to get a roughly good exposure, then the tonemapper to get a good starting base, the photo should already be properly exposed. If it looks dark, then it’s likely because too much of the photo is dark and then you just have to either use the tone equalizer to modify the coarse tones of the image or maybe check the tonemapper settings, which certainly doesn’t take ten minutes. Maybe 20 seconds, if that. The history stack can give a more detailed summary by quickly clicking up the stack.
I also think that if a lot of hunting and wondering is happening, then there’s something wrong with the editing process that was used. Darktable has a lot of modules, but that doesn’t mean that a lot of modules should be used with each individual photo.
The one thing I can say about darktable is that because it has a lot of modules, it encourages people to over-edit. No doubt about that. And I’m not saying that no improvement could be made - there always are. But it does seem to me that a LOT of problems that occur with people thinking DT is too complex is because they’re using too much of it at a time, when instead they should be using an additive process: start with using as few modules as possible, and only add more to your personal module list if you really can’t accomplish something without it.
That way, it should be pretty easy to see what you’ve done in the past, especially if you stick to the same sort of workflow every time.
TIL, thanks for the correction. I was not aware of the negative connotation of the term, I always used it for “having strong opinions”, which is what I meant here (as you said, clear direction).
And - please all of us/you should also remember for whome dt is developed and designed. Definitely not for the “three sliders will do it” group of users. Definitely not for the “i used to do it this way on xyz and this is simply annoying in dt” group. Definitely not for the “i expect it to be like this and give a shit others” group. Definitely not for “i used dt for 3 days and find it not intuitive” group.
dt is a full-size application designed for people interested in raw photo devoloping with best-quality in mind. All dt devs constantly work on this, that’s our mission. So if we talk about UI - at least the title says so - keep above in mind.
We definitely want to give our best for new users and we can definitely further improve here, but that’s simply not the prime focus. Or - we should not add code complexity just for the sake of dt-entry-levels users.
Reminds me about the ? button or the enourmous amount of tooltips we have. How comes that people just ignore what we have to support new and advanced users? That’s a serious question! Should we enforce tooltips for the first 100 dt sessions?
I have been using & developing dt for many years so i guess i know the program quite well. It never came to my mind to disable tooltips, warning …
Looks like this topic covering both UI and UX of darktable is getting a lot of attention.
I was lately experimenting on UI side, tying to develop darktable theme that looks more “modern” to my taste.
The main principle for this new them for me was: Chrome that recedes. UI competes with the photo as little as possible. Hover and focus bring controls forward when needed; everything else stays calm.
In practice: fewer borders, less colour differentiation between chrome layers, modestly softer corners, state communicated through background change rather than outlines.
It’s just a face lift to the elegant theme, not a redesign – same workflow, same density, same shortcuts. Only the visual layer is quieter.
I know it can be toggled, but the huge bar at the top with the logo and only 3 buttons takes so much real-estate, it should be completely removed IMO just like it was done in Ansel.
Only a “Go back” button(possibly in the filter bar) is needed in the print and darkroom screens. To get into the dark room the user mostly double clicks on an image anyway, and if he wants to toggle back and forth, there is a shortcut for that already.
