I can really emphasize with his burn out a bit. He clearly has a passion but is fried on the negative aspects it.
I continue to shoot regularly but almost never edit or post shots online. I can’t stomach spending so much time on the computer or dealing with social media. Sometimes I consider ditching digital and computers and just shooting polaroids, lol.
Sometimes I consider ditching digital and computers and just shooting polaroids, lol.
You are not alone.
I used to feel the same, but recently I dialed in a few digital film stocks I like with AgX and since then 99% of my editing after culling is just selecting one and adjusting the exposure.
interesting concept! I will bookmark that to check out next time i do any editing. Thanks alot!
He explains here much of what he has done in the tools…including a small change in filmic to allow you to adjust the toe and shoulder… also some colorspace corrections and some new ways to modify color…for example a scene referred color contrast option, an old module that could add some nice pop to skies and sunsets and help with color casts so there could be some things in there to consider…he evaluates the color equalizer and says it was broken and unfinished and he has modified that … so I would say there could be elements worth looking at…
See how is it handled in Ansel if you don’t want the preamble… 
Definitely not a fan of the negative attitude towards darktable. Harsh. And I like Sigmoid.
Yes, the original stuff was broken in a lot of ways. Do you really think that crap is existing in current dt? UCS color maths at that time had many problems, some people were talking about a UI problem with supernova effects or black pixels or NaNs due to div-by-zero … those all got fixed many dt versions ago.
I was only quoting him and he seemed to be criticising the guided filters which were used …also he went to a model of having highlight, midtone and shadows tabs for the module…which is interesting choice…I’m not sure about that one but to be clear there was no intended critism of the work put in to get the DT version to market and the current DT model…I have no business so if it came across that way I’m sorry…I was just elaborating on some of the dialogue he presented…
Ironically, English might have more mildly derogatory phrases referencing the Dutch than the French. Courage, wife, uncle, oven, going Dutch, etc.
I‘m also a user and not a developer but does it makes sense to go through APs commits/blogpost and check if there is anything of value for DT? If not cross it out and document that it doesn‘t need to be discussed again.
No problem at all
I don’t know how the ansel implementation goes … and yes the guided filter was one of many problems we had to solve preventing bleeding saturated colors into bright areas. We use two sliders for that, ‘contrast’ and ‘saturation threshold’.
There are good algorithm ideas in ansel, let’s see what will be picked for dt.
Short version is that the UI is in UCS, but this is then translated into a LUT which is applied in RGB space. The same goes for the other new color modules.
Amen to that. We’re photographers sitting behind our computers instead of having a real life. So we have more in common than what divides us 
The DT version works well for me, although sometimes adjacent controls become reversed, brighter direction is actual darker, etc. but otherwise it’s one of my go-to modules.
The Ansel version is interesting. I’m not sure how I’d use the cube display below and I’d much prefer a unified set of equalizer controls rather than being segregated by shadow/midtone/highlight. It would be nice as an option but in everyday life I would find colors difficult to control.
@hannoschwalm , if I submitted a feature request for those sliders, and basically the Options tab, to be at the bottom of the module regardless of whether the main sliders are shown, is there a chance it would be implemented?
I know a decision was made at some point to move the Options from the bottom of the module to a new tab if the graph sliders are shown, but I’m not sure what the reason was. I assume it was for screen real-estate purposes, but it’s a dropdown anyway, so it doesn’t really take up room in its collapsed state, and some of us have enough room to expand everything.
I find the extra tab adds unnecessary friction for those of us who prefer to use sliders rather than the graph.
When you use the sliders are you often looking to find 57% or some fine level of control??
If you can adjust your perception, unlike AP’s color eq and color zones the nodes in DT are fixed horizontally when you drag them up and down (yes there is an offset to target a picked color) and there are 4 divisions on the grid on either side of zero so you can work relative to 0 25 50 75 and 100%, essentially in this edition of the module to me the nodes are just vertical sliders with an interpreted spline on the visual back drop…
So if you can get past that most of the time when you hide the sliders you haven’t, but I guess there could be situations and people that would still like the traditional display… but if you do you can have those controls below now… I find once I use an offset I am sometimes guessing at first what slider to move but on the graph its obvious right away…
I wonder if you could hover over a node and get the value or dynamically as you drag up and down get an update on the note on the graph…
It’s actually more basic than that - I just prefer horizontal sliders. I sometimes use the graph, but I prefer to use the sliders. It’s just a case of old habits die hard.
It’s not a big issue, but the horizontal sliders were added to give us an option, so I feel that there shouldn’t be any “penalty” for choosing that option.
I’d actually prefer a tabless design with Hue, Saturation and Brightness all available at the same time. I’m not a fan of tabs generally and wish none of the modules used them for frequently used controls. But I also understand that it’s unavoidable in some cases.
Isnt that so much of it and likely why some of these UI discussions get messy…For me I often use the picker with the color eq when I do then I use the offset to line up the node…if it is one of the middle sliders and I go to use them I find myself counting or trying one or two sliders, ie the 5th one over or the 6th one for example depending on which way I went with that slider and 50% of the time I grab the wrong one first…if I use the graph right away I am visually aligned…
So maybe this is similar UI wide and why its so hard to make a change that is universally accepted at least initially…
I certainly wouldn’t want that
As i see it - we have those sliders “unfortunately” from the times the module was implemented and i was not taking care enough and remove them! I would like to remove them in fact still.
For me this is just one of those dt UI points where dt carries code burden because some people like it that way.
That is one of ansel strong points in a way. “Don’t care what some people want but do it in a way the dev decides”.
This also applies to modules.
Extra tabs a) are very good to hide non-applicable options b) reduce vertical height as you know.
ansel claims darktable 4.0 compatibility, so it should still apply to ansel too; you can e.g use base curve even if it’s not available with the same trick as for obsolete modules in dt