Absolutely! Good to see ART getting its own (forked) documentation.
Understood, no problem. 
My only intent in the “MORE_INFO_NEEDED / TODO” markers was to indicate where I didn’t understand something to a point of explaining it with “authority” (i.e., so that readers wouldn’t be mislead) and / or thought someone more knowledgeable might contribute insight, clarification, etc.
After your corrections are done I’ll review the TODOs and provide verbiage where I can. No rush.
So do (will) I need to clone <something> in order to edit it? Sorry – I’m totally unfamiliar wtih BitBucket / Jira / this wiki / etc. and have no experience working with them. Do I have access to do that? I can (usually! 
) follow instructions if there are some, though.
Thanks!!
Yes, the wiki is in a git repository that can be cloned (there should be a button in the top right corner of the page). Then you can edit and submit pull requests as in a usual git workflow.
HTH
Yes, that looks like some serious work. Haven’t read it yet, just scrolled through it and saw 2 or 3 sentences.
I will definitely read it (some day) and see if I can help at some point. (I think I’m doing quite well with ART, but also don’t have any technical background knowledge to explain things properly)
So far, I have a note…
Tone-EQ, Regularization:
The biggest changes happen between 0 and 1, the other values are mostly for fine tuning. A general recommendation is to keep the setting at 1
I personally would disagree with those points. But apart from my feelings, I would suggest to not insert (artistic) recommendations in the manual as long as there is not a serious technical reason for telling people to use something “with care”, but to just explain the functions and effects of adjustments.
Thanks, but 99.999% of the “serious work” is from others, just collated here.
FYI – This is one of several “TODO” pieces that will need revision. This one was originally copied from one of @agriggio’s posts, simply for my personal reference. That was before the idea expanded with the subsequent thought these pieces might be revised by someone more knowledgeable than me. Any input is appreciated.
I’ll monitor here for a while …not to mention read up on cloning a git repository and all that. I’ve logged into git and filed a bug report here and there, but nothing more. It may be a little while, though with the holidays and all.
1 Like
OK, got it cloned and will review. I’ll submit a pull request at some point.
Thanks.
Looking very good.
My first thought is that the editor tabs, ie exposure etc, should be bolder, possibly underlined, and have the tab icon next to it. This would make it easier for a newcomer to understand.
Thanks for the effort.
The tab icons are a good idea, so I’ve added them – although I’ve not submitted them back so only for me at the moment . I’ve also corrected a few typos and other minor things.
As far as the overall styling goes I’m trying to not specify too much so it can follow suit with the other info on the ART wiki.
Thanks for the feedback.
I feel like this is one of those ideas that, once done, will be another step toward the software being perceived as on par with other, more established FOSS projects. Users will be interested once they see it. As the movie says, Build it and they will come.
1 Like
Well that took less time than I expected (had some time to kill today). I’ve edited the Markdown to correct a few typos, clean up my wording and add clarifications, etc. There are only a few TODOs left, but any commentary from me would be empirical at best (and very likely incorrect).
So I’m ready to send it back. However, I need assistance…
The clone yesterday (?) was the first time I’ve used git. I’ve been reading on the Bitbucket support site how to create a pull request, but I’m not finding the “create” option it mentions.
Am I just being blind or in the wrong place?
Pointers? Cheat sheet? Slap on the head? 
Thanks.
You have to be logged in to see the button, could it be that? Anyway I’m not very familiar with the BB interface myself – if it’s too complicated, you can also upload a zip file here if you prefer.
Thanks in advance!
@lphilpot I thought for a while to do some doc, but I had not enough knowledge or courage to set up something.
I appreciate your willingness to set up a documention. I have a few questions:
- do you intend to fork rawpedia and use it as the basis for this doc. There are a lot of chapters applicable to ART. Or just link to it when applicable?
- do you foresee participation of other users? and do you have already an idea of the procedure? I suppose the straightforward method will be to modify/correct your doc repository. If you require other people to complement/correct the doc through pull requests to your own doc repository, I fear you will not get a lot of contributions. So you should grant access directly to it, as it is done with rawpedia wiki.
Thanks again for the effort and to @agriggio for help.
I was logged in and found a “Create” button / dropdown list but it had nothing about pull requests on it. If I was a dev, merging branches, etc., I’d invest the time to learn the git command line. But I assumed for this one time the BItbucket GUI would suffice.
At any rate, here’s a zip of the Markdown file and its image folder. I don’t see myself really doing anything more. I’ve already exceeded the limits of my knowledge LOL.
Thanks.
ART_reference_20221217.zip (4.0 MB)
1 Like
I can totally understand!!
Twenty years ago I had a hobby interest in C – but not C++ – programming (which I still find interesting but have largely forgotten). From then until 18 months ago I was a Solaris / Linux sysadmin. I won’t even call myself a Windows admin, since a piece of paper and admin rights do not an admin make (despite what my managers thought)…
At any rate, I say that to show just how non-applicable any “knowledge” I still have is to image processing in C++
I have neither the interest nor the knowledge to fork RawPedia. My thought for this doc was to cover the differences between ART and RT, with only a thin veneer of further information. Reading RawPedia and then mentally “applying” the ART changes (from whatever source) would be the suggested process.
I would definitely like others to directly contribute – Not through me. I have no sense of ownership, so it’s fair game to anyone.* As stated upthread, it started as semi-random notes for myself, then was expanded. As such, maybe it’ll serve as a kick-starter for further documentation. Of course it’s @agriggio 's decision where it goes,if anywhere. I certainly don’t see myself as “author” (except the wrong parts 
) since I just collected it from elsewhere.
I think any serious effort at “official” ART documentation* (i.e., “ARTPedia” level) should start clean, with more thought-out goals, design and structure. This doc is probably too uneven for much growth.
* Anything the community does is, of course, within of @agriggio’s discretion. He’s clearly stated how he feels about the software and his approach to documentation, which is all good. I assume (??) at most he’ll serve as curator / editor of community-submitted content, getting involved possibly only to the point of identifying / correcting errors.
Thanks.
Yes.
1 Like
“Forking” rawpedia will be rough until its a Hugo site. I’m not sure how you’d fork a media wiki site.
We can, of course, formulate the markdown @lphilpot has provided into a Hugo site, as we have done for many many things in the greater Foss photographic community. It’d then be hosted on a git forge (bit bucket?) which provides access control. It can either be published on the forge or on the pixls infrastructure.
My only comment would be to reiterate: The reference is what it is and hopefully it’s useful within reason. But it’s no RawPedia and if there are bigger plans I recommend more groundwork first.
Thanks a lot (again)! It’s now merged and linked from the main page. I did not read everything in detail yet but it looks pretty good!
You’re welcome. Thanks for ART!
Just a note to other users here - If anyone wants to document the half-dozen or so remaining "TODO"s, feel free. With enough jiggery-pokery I can usually get those parts of ART to respond appropriately (e.g., local editing tools) but properly documenting them is beyond me at this point.