ART goes towards 1.0

I also no longer use highlights and shadows now we have tone equaliser. Sometimes I would like to be able to push settings of the tone equaliser further but perhaps that would run into problems. Most of my attempts using dynamic range compression tool have created pictures with an unnatural hdr look but perhaps that is just my misuse of the tool.

@srgmro I know that :wink:
@agriggio
The difference is not in the highlight. If you have a look you will notice that the left part of histogram is pushed towards black and a part of shadow is crushed to (0,0,0) which is very dificcult to recover.
This artifact can be observed under the first arch of the bridge.
This prevents me to use this function as I can get better results with the tone equaliser.

So this is a bug. I’ll look into it. However, please do consider to write proper bug reports, not just multiple cryptic posts with no clear description of what you are observing, how to reproduce, and not even a link to the problematic image. Extracting the proper information from the forum is not fun… (and sorry if this sounds like a rant – indeed it is :wink: )

1 Like

@agriggio sorry for the burden. I did’nt know if it was a bug or a bad use by me. So don’t worry I am going to write a ticket.
edit : done :relieved:

1 Like

Ok I saw the difference. I learn a lot at each stage of the construction of the ART program.

so, shadows/highlights is going away. Other answers:

Indeed, allowing more latitude would introduce artifacts I’m afraid.

Don’t be afraid to push the detail slider up, that will help. Also, my recent tweaks to the tool are an attempt to mitigate the “fake HDR look” that you are talking about. Unfortunately, as discovered by @gaaned92 they might generate crushed blacks, but I am working on a fix for that.

Yes latest results for DRC seem to work well with a just few other tweaks…

Works also well for me. I checked also with this raw file

and all seems OK.

Thanks for the fix of DRC.

edit: ART_master_0.3-65-g7d4212934_W64_SSE4_200103.7z
uploaded at
https://keybase.pub/gaaned92/ART-W64NightlyBuilds/

Just compiled 16773c30a

What does the Color Management > Input profile > Use embedded if possible do? The tooltip mentions non-raw files. What about dng’s?

With out of camera dng’s I believe that the input profile can be embedded. The thing is that the “camera standard” option resolves to either one of three profiles (according to the tooltip) with no way of knowing which one is currently active. Will selecting “use embedded if possible” force this behaviour with dngs and does the ‘if possible’ mean it might fall back to some other profile? Is there then a way of knowing which one?

Hi,

Thanks for reminding me that I need to change those tooltips, I completely forgot… To sum up:

  • “use embedded” works also for DNGs, using the embedded DCP if available
  • “camera standard” uses the “Adobe” D65 matrix (extracted from the Adobe DNG converter) if available, otherwise it will use an “unspecified” default internal matrix coming from dcraw. You can find all the cameras for which there’s such a matrix in the cammatrices.json file (inside rtdata in the source tree). That file has priority over the global camconst.json file and the hard-coded matrices in dcraw.cc, which are used only as fallbacks.
  • the “if possible” qualifier should probably just be removed, it’s more confusing than helpful. If the current raw file has no embedded profile, “use embedded” will be disabled. “If possible” only applies when you copy/paste your settings from a file which has an embedded profile to a file which doesn’t. In that case, “use embedded” will fall back to “camera standard”.

Hope this helps

2 Likes

I think that some time ago I was able to get XMP image rating in ART.

I made a test:
I have a raw file DSC_1472.NEF and an XMP file DSC_1472.NEF.xmp containing:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.6.0">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
            xmlns:MicrosoftPhoto="http://ns.microsoft.com/photo/1.0/">
         <xmp:Rating>1</xmp:Rating>
         <xmp:Label/>
         <MicrosoftPhoto:Rating>1</MicrosoftPhoto:Rating>
      </rdf:Description>
   </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>

In the option file I have:

[Metadata]
XMPSidecarStyle=ext
XMPSynchronization=readwrite
ExiftoolPath=exiftool.exe

I don’t get the rating in ART.
Was I dreaming or am I doing wrong now? perhaps the XMP doesn’t have the right format?
Thanks for help

you’re not dreaming, last time I tried it worked fine… I’ll check asap

Hi @gaaned92,

Do you have this set?

Ah! Thank you @agriggio :grinning:

I wrongly thought that setting “Image processing/Metadata” was sufficient and I did not go further.

Sorry I’m late to the party but just wanted to say that ART is still my main tool and I’m really enjoying using it. Congratulations on getting it to 1.0.

I agree with most points brought up. Turning off local adjustments with a simple check box would be very good. I also don’t use the Shadows and Highlights tool, so I’m fine with that going away.

As for a wishlist, I don’t really have too many items. If I’m not mistaken, you said you’re already thinking of improving the Inspect functionality to include comparisons between multiple photos. Getting closer to a proper culling mode would be awesome.
Other than that, I’ve always wanted a simple Retouch tool for RT (like a healing brush), so I guess this would also apply to ART.
And do you intend to port over the updated Film Negative features from RT?

Hi,

good to hear, as this is in place already (since yesterday):
56

It’s gone already :slight_smile:

This requires some thinking about the proper UI, and won’t be in 1.0 I’m afraid.

There’s one in the works in RT. When it’s ready, I’ll see if I can steal it.

Yes, when it gets merged into the main branch of RT. (I’m not in a hurry because I never really shot film myself, and my dad used mostly slides, not negatives).

Anyway, I’m almost done with the latest things, I’ll try to post a release candidate for version 1.0 in a couple of days…

3 Likes

Nice improvement.
But shrinking the tool tab at minimum hides the check boxes and the scrollbar is so discrete that I didn’t notice it :thinking:

I noticed in options that you set up a fallback for exiv2 with exiftool. So I included exiftool.exe alongside ART.exe and opened a CR3 file which is decoded by exiftool. I got no exif data. If you intend to have this feature operational for 1., what we must do in the build?

edit:
ART_master_0.3-75-ge93684c93_W64_SSE4_200104.7z
uploaded at
https://keybase.pub/gaaned92/ART-W64NightlyBuilds/

@agriggio
An updated french translation file, including last modifications (commits 7d42129 and 7159361).Francais.txt (150.5 KB)

Sorry, but this is handled by GTK, I don’t know if there’s much I can do…

In theory, you should just put exiftool.exe in the data dir of ART (the dir where e.g. camconst.json is). For windows builds, this should be the top directory, but I’m not really sure as I almost never use windows.
If you can provide a “vanilla” x64 build for windows, I can take a look at what is wrong (I am running windows on a VM, your optimized builds do not work here…)