Clearly the primaries don’t need to be in a collapsible section. I would also vote for the curve to be always visible, no collapsible section as the advanced can be collapsed.
1 Like
Here’s the Win 11 executable for build #857:
4 Likes
I guess its still a work in progress, but to avoid redundancy, do you plan to have the controls for ‘basic curve parameters’ in only one tab?
Since the visual curve responds to the curve parameters, it makes sense to me they would both be in the first tab, with the ‘look’ section being in the second.
1 Like
@kofa Thanks for the tabs which make things so much easier, at least for me. I hope for others too.
1 Like
I want to have a tab that has all the controls needed to edit most photos; for me, that’s the ‘look’ and the ‘basic’ curve controls. However, if one needs to edit the curve in detail, with both the ‘basic’ and ‘advanced’ curve params, it would be very annoying to have to switch between tabs to access all (‘basic’ and ‘advanced’) controls. That’s why I duplicated the controls.
I think it depends on what people with HD displays prefer: one or two pages? Collapsible sections or not?
The code is much simpler without the duplication.
2 Likes
Yes, I already mentioned the primaries collapsible in my post.
The ‘advanced’ collapsible would probably go away (the controls would simply be visible as the time): with this setup, you switch to the ‘curve’ tab exactly because you want to use them (the ‘basic’ ones are already accessible on the first tab).
Sure, I was responding to that to say that I agree 100% with you.
1 Like
Please leave it this way. I definitely don’t want to switch tabs on every photo.
Yes there is some redundancy, but for me, it’s no problem.
The question is: 3 tabs, or 2, like the previous build, work only’primaries’ moved from the 1st page?
I think that’s definitely better. Because you have all the parameters that influence the curve in the first tab.
2 Likes
Yes I would have both the curve, and all the controls that effect the curve, in one tab. Exposure range, basic and advanced.
If ‘look’ is in a collapsible I don’t see how that is different to it being in a separate tab. It’s the same number of clicks to open and close collapsibles as it is to switch tabs. So it’s mostly a question of vertical space. Tabs are better for that.
(Unless one is constantly going back and forth between the ‘look’ and ‘curve’ sections, in that case tabs are more clicks, as opposed to leaving the collapsible open, but that seems like a workflow issue to me. Better to do one, then the other).
1 Like
On a lot of software, we have the possibility to act directly on the curve. Is it possible and desirable to add this functionality?
The last version is clear to use, and always great results. thanks a lot for this work.
Please add a ‘like’ here if you prefer to have two tabs:
- settings (look, exposure and basic/advanced curve params, plus the curve display)
- primaries
24 Likes
Please add a ‘like’ here if you prefer 3 tabs:
- ‘look’, exposure and basic curve settings
- all curve settings + graph
- primaries
9 Likes
Not really. The visual y coordinates may change based on the both the internal gamma slider and on the linear y value assigned to the pivot, for example. We wouldn’t know which one the user wanted to change.
Internally, the effective contrast is recalculated to keep the relative output change per input EV change meaning of contrast the same, when the relative black/white exposure levels are modified. If we relied on the positions of control points, doing so would become more complicated. (How should you move the control points to keep contrast the same? Change x or y?)
1 Like
I have not installed AgX myself, but from the postings here I get the impression that kofa’s concept is about to find its final form.
I would therefore like to revert to a topic touched upon earlier in this thread where @rvietor remarked i.a.
– and there was then a dialog between him and @s7habo about this in the next five posts.
What are the thoughts among forum members at the current stage on the following, (presuming that Agx will be included at least in dt 5.4):
Should we in the future continue to advice beginners to go with sigmoid as the tone mapper, or are the AgX results and the means to obtain them (how much one need to learn/understand to use AgX) of such a character that the recommendation should rather be to use AgX?
If one use AgX, what difference should it make to current workflow recommendations as for usage of other modules?
Isn’t that a bit premature? Before thinking about what to suggest to new users, I’d have to know how to use the module myself in its final form.
5 Likes
AgX completely preserves mid-grey, as long as you don’t move the pivot (which is set to mid-grey initially). In filmic, you can also alter mid-grey among the advanced settings.
The latitude and shadows/highlight balance params in_filmic_ control where the toe and shoulder start. In agx, we have explicit controls for that, expressed as percentages. There is a bit of calculation involved in determining the toe and shoulder start point in both modules. The curve in filmic is also a ‘piecewise’ curve (so not some kind of magical curve that arises based on constraints), consisting of a toe, a linear section and a shoulder; it also calculates the shoulder and toe starting points from parameters, and applies them the same way:
If you apply the additional ‘look’ controls, which are like adding RGB or Lab curves after filmic or sigmoid, mid-grey won’t be preserved. But you don’t have to use them, just like you don’t have to add the aforementioned curves.
It was my impression/hope that things had come so far that people may have started to form some thoughts in this direction.
(As some of us are writing about using dt, it could be nice to know if we ought to change direction somewhat …)
Thanks, @kofa, that was i fine clarification.