Please post problematic images.
Sure will do. I think it would be useful to gather the best examples with my some comments on my thought processes so that people may see if I am doing something wrong.
Won’t have much time on the laptop over the next few days so don’t think that I have forgotten…
2 Likes
We will be here…I have notice a funny thing and in many instances I find I like the color in my image better when I blend filmic in lightness. Likely this is going against some part of the code but to me it takes a bit of the desaturation of filmic and resaturates in a pleasant way vs the results from blending in normal
If you want to post a shot of it I can run it through colormatch and you can try the icc file…
Thanks for offering! I think I will have to do a better shot first.
OK sorry for the noise. I realise that on balance, using colour preservation (RGB power norm) in filmic RGB gives better results (less lurid grass, more saturated skies) than having it disabled, counter to my first impressions, and when used in conjunction with colourfulness preset in RGB colour balance mostly gives pretty realistic colours, so I think I need just to RTFM…(retreats back into hole)
No need to be sorry, and I’m sorry if that came off aggressive. I’ve found lately that talking about these things in the abstract isn’t very productive, and getting an images to work on proves or disproves the point quite quickly. 
1 Like
No worries, didn’t seem aggressive to me. You are right though, images are much more use than a descriptive recollection… which often turn out to be the ramblings of a slightly distorted memory!
1 Like
Its a bit of a preference thing. I prefer none at least 50% of the time and Euclidean over power norm. I suspect this might vary depending on what camera you have and the starting point for the color before filmic. I have also taken to blending filmic in lightness mode…I like the look better and it removes a bit of the desaturation that I think can be a bit aggressive or too much for some images.
…
I wonder why people hate no preservation so much. It seem to be much closer to the out of camera colors when white relative exposure are not push above 4. i just wonder what are the disadvantages when compared to power norm. i find that power norm does preserve colors when is push way above 4 and the contrast seem to reduce very much. maybe the experts can shed some light
The manual has some explanation: https://www.darktable.org/usermanual/3.6/en/module-reference/processing-modules/filmic-rgb/#options
My guess would be that no tends to saturate the shadows and desaturate the highlights, which is not great for landscape type of shots.
I think they have…from the manual…
“There is no “right” choice for the norm, and the appropriate choice depends strongly on the image to which it is applied. You are advised to experiment and decide for yourself which setting gives the most pleasing result with the fewest artifacts.”
1 Like
Well, to be honest, I choose “no preservation” everytime I use Filmic RGB. Firstly, I don’t like the look of any preservation mode, which is subjective of course; secondly, I see it gives nasty artifacts when it comes to overexposed areas such as lightbulbs, chandeliers etc.
And since I can’t escape from the bulbs indoors, I don’t preserve chrominance
4 Likes
I assume that shooting in RAW+JPEG would be the better approach for you then. However, I explicitly do not recommend this, as that way you will never come up with your own styles or presets and in the end, you most probably would never touch a raw again. And in addition, I’m pretty sure that most (if not all) sooc are overburden with things the camera maker thinks this is a must have for each and every photographer.
1 Like
Which setting do you have on Highlights Reconstructions? You should probably either use one of the reconstruction modes other than clipping or disable that module.
I’ve been experimenting with different settings across highlight reconstruction & filmic, turning HL-recon. off included. The worst case scenario is using Filmic RGB with chrominance preservation + modern chromatic adaptation when lighting conditions are far from D65 illuminate.
Unfortunately that is the case when shooting indoors: artificiall light around 2700 K, so leaving white balance at “Camera reference” is so huge difference, that close to overexposured areas become ugly; applying CAT on top of it makes things crazy, and treating all of it with Filmic chromatic preservation makes one huge “ka-boom” 
Of course I am aware that it can be my lack of understanding (despite countless hours of investigation), but for the time being, I find the mixture of the base curve and classic white balancing the most robust and treating highlights and overexposure exceptionally well 
However, I trust Aurélien and his knowledge, I believe scene-referred workflow is the future and I am able to use those tools like Filmic e.g. in landscape photos, but it certainly doesn’t work for me with typical indoor shooting.
I push myself to go full scale on scene-referred, but further training is needed. Maybe future versions of CAT and Filmic can solve my problem.
Thanks for the tip anyway 
1 Like
If you are in search of a solution, post a problematic images as a play raw. Single illuminant white balance should not be a problem.
3 Likes
Unfortunately problematic pictures contain people, e.g. from weddings, so I’m not allowed to post them, but sure, from now on I’ll be more aware and perhaps catch a photo with “safe” content and problem illustrated.
However, it’s not urgent - I really find darktable extremely useful, fast and convenient. Moreover, its output in terms of image quality, tonality, crispness and colour are basically outstanding.
I’m quite geeky and regularly dig in various other software, including DXO, CaptureOne and SilkyPix, but really, I regard darktable as overall killer winner. 
And there is one more thing - recently one user gave us whole lot of grief and aggression. Contrary to him I see one extra thing rarely mentioned: we not only benefit from using free software, but are also given careful explanation and vast shared knowledge.
Working in printing house I know how complicated and expensive is Colour Management, software and training - Aurélien alone gives us sophisticated knowledge, not to mention all the dedicated users here!
So, I’m following many posts here, meanwhile experimenting, in time I think I will use your expertise
2 Likes
It’s quite uncommon that complex problems can be solved by simple solutions - so don’t expect darktable to have some magic implemented.
It’s really important to handle each issue separately: blown highlight‘s should be handled before filmic stuffs the whole scene referred stuff into a limited display referred - filmic just can mitigate the effect.
The masking concept is the key to this - different things can be handled different.
In advantage over the old single whitebalance color calibration allows different processing of different illuminated areas - this is a big value indoors where direct and indirect illumination can demand quite different whitebalance settings to get consistent colors. Color calibration and then colorbalancergb are the primary tools to get colors right, not filmic 
For your clipped highlights sample: if there’s a channel with remaining infos you can try reconstruct in lch or color in the highlights reconstruction module. But don’t expect magic
If you use modern and set the WB to camera reference and then in CC it should be similar to as shot. If not you can select that in the dropdown in CC , ie as shot. If that does not come fairly close to standard WB settings also in as shot mode then I think you should try to post an image. Just take an empty shot with no people next time and then you can share it…