So, I am learning more and more about Darktable. One of the guys at the local photoclub is totally averse from open source and a fan of DxO, so I took the challenge and downloaded the trial.
(this is not about the quality of DxO, I think it works fine with pretty good results and definitely has its purpose for those that are willing/can fork out the cash that I’d rather spend on new gear or a nice trip to a location)
I like to photograph dogs. This random encounter has been taken with the old Canon 7D @ iso 250, so some slight noise but not the high noise recovery that DxO boosts about. What do you think? In my eyes pretty ok, maybe it could be a bit more neutral and by applying some of the diffusion and sharpen module made it a bit too blotchy? I’ll try to fiddle around a bit more.
Here’s my My XMP. I did not use any masks on purpose. (which would probably help with the background since it has too much local contrast to my liking.
yes, maybe, but some may use it as starting point for further adjustments. I assume it’s cumbersome, so I removed it. (Maybe the admins have to remove the actual file)
For what it is worth I at first thought the top image was DxO but it was darktable. Out of the two jpgs posted by you I prefer the top one. The fur looks muddy in the DxO edit, but that may be the user and not the program. However, I love darktable and feel no desire to spend money on a subscription for commercial software.
Here is my edit using sigmoid for tone mapping. I slightly prefer your DT edit. So well done.
One of my attempts. I think one of the main difference between your edit and your colleague’s is actually the exposure. His seems a bit higher and it helps with blowing away the background. You said you didn’t like how blotchy the background looked when you added contrast and sharpness (I sometimes feel like that too). One idea I had was to combine a shape and a gradient to affect primarily the out of focus background, but not the foreground or the dog:
So I could use the contrast equalizer module to reduce the coarse contrast in the background without affecting neither the dog or the sand that’s actually in focus.
Edit: sorry, not sure why I replied to Tim’s message, must’ve clicked the wrong button somewhere xD
you made it pop even more. I have to study your xmp. If you look at the left side of the front paw, the sand has a bit weird texture. could be the rendition of the now 17 year old 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM lens (first version).
You are right, I should have been more carfully.
I just threw my standard sharpening and local contrast routine over your picture. Standard is most of the time meh.
So I revisited my image after considering what concerned you in the image. First for noise I don’t feel this image has a noise problem. However, my sharpen and texture treatment may have contributed to what you interpret as noise. So I limited the effects by drawing a path mask around the sharper areas of the dog. I also brought out more detail in the dogs fur in the shadows by using the old school shadow and highlights module which I like.
As for DxO I wonder why people believe you have to pay hard earn cash to get a superior product. The dedication by the developers of darktable is huge and they have developed a real artists tool. I have never used DxO so I won’t criticize it, but I have used Lightroom a lot and there is no way I am every going back to Adobe’s LR after discovering a far more powerful and fun program with darktable. Darktable has four tone mapping options in if you include the new AgX in DT5.3. How many does DxO or LR have?
I am always amazed at how adept pixls contributors can be in bringing out details without losing the appearance of “softness”. It often feels like rur, feathers, fog (and clouds) are the bane of my editing.
Totally agree with all you said. Never thought about he shadows and highlights module. I have to admit I stepped into Darktable too late due to free access to Adobe stuff untill late 2024
