Way better, the neutral raw looks slightly more yellow but without a direct comparison this is good enough to me!
I should perhaps add that I immediately reacted to your interpretation of the scene quoted below when I scrolled through this thread. It stood as the best of the bunch. It looked âfilmicâ, in the original sense of the word.
Is PhotoFlow still being developed? The latest build I can find on GitHub is from 2020-08-04. What is this âexperimental rgb hue preserving tonemappingâ youâre speaking of?
This is going off-topic. Perhaps there could be a separate thread about that tone-mapping.
Yellow is a combination of red and green. Each channel individually goes from black > colour (eg. Black > fully saturated Red), but the effect of the three channels combined is black > white. If you turn off all your modules and look at the waveform (individual channels) you will see a small amount of information already near peak in both red and green channels. Individually, this tell us these channels are very colourful, but together it tells us they are also very bright. This gives you very little room to move in editing. If you boost exposure to make the flowers as a whole brighter, those peaks are suddenly way off the map, thus out of gamut (you can double check this by viewing the perceptual gamut scope instead of waveform. Boost exposure and watch those colours go out of gamut). Your gamut mapping (if not done in darktable, is done your monitor) will then put them back in gamut according to the rendering intent. In this case, and often with sunsets, we get the infamous rat piss yellow - which looks colourful, but garish and inaccurate. When you turn on filmic, which compresses the range and has gamut mapping, it will bring everything back in gamut, but either at the expense of hue (thus our yellow might become orange or pinkish as some say), or colourfulness (thus our yellow becomes desaturated and closer to white). How to avoid? You can avoid boosting exposure. The image as a whole will be too dark, but your yellows will be nice. If doing this, you can use base curve (or some custom rgb curves) instead of filmic, and boost the midtones, which will leave the bright yellowâs pretty nice, but have a different feel in terms of contrast. @age edits retain the yellow nicely because of his use of custom curves. Another option is to export two versions - one for the picture as a whole, and one for the highlights - and combine them in gimp or krita.
EDIT: If using single version of filmic for your edit, tone equaliser will be a big help. I didnât push it far enough in my edit.
2 Likes
darktable (on the left) vs. darktable output, a TIFF in Rec2020, in a colour-managed viewer (on the right):
3 Likes
The tiff looks great!
So, it seems that for now, Iâll export Rec2020 TIFFs, then do
tificc -e Rec2020-input.tif sRGB-output.tif, and then convert to JPG using imagemagick, unless I can convince IM to do the conversion itself.
2 Likes
Interestingly, if I add the Rec2020 TIFF exported from darktable to darktable, it looks good in the darkroom. Top: raw file; bottom: exported+imported TIFF
Edit: opened https://github.com/darktable-org/darktable/issues/12175
3 Likes
Its one of those images with some extreme light and so how much you keep or how you hand WB might strongly impact the end result but I didnât really do an edit or adjust filmic at all I merely pointed out that the edit shown for filmic was a long way off. I just took the edit presented and used default filmic settings instead with no adjustments at all so its not an edit just meant to show this notion of calling an edit a filmic editâŚ@age pointed out that it was a strongly modified custom grey value, the filmic curve was a bit clipped at both ends and the latitude was zeroâŚ
Your point is of course true, settings matter and make comparisons difficult. However your example is a very dark edit that avoids the difficulty of the photo. The blacks look crushed or at least way to dark. (On my phone so canât say for sure)
The question is does the tonemapping allow you to map the tones and achieve correct and pleasing results in a controlled way. Iâm sure you can but itâs probably possible to make it more robust for users.
For sure and it wasnât actually an attempt at an edit. I was merely trying to show that one example presented for filmic which appeared quite like a ghost to me was not indicative of what using filmic as a tonemapper for this image was likely to produce or even capable ofâŚin the image I just changed the edit of @age to have filmic at its defaults. @age had not added any exposure preferring to try and tweak the image with the middle gray slider instead so for sure me just flipping it to defaults darkened the image but it wasnât imo that far off the presented examples and a subsequent edit by @mikae1 was also quite acceptable.
Perhaps the question is not if you can but more so how hard is it to achieve consistent predictable and desirable results wrt another method. I think many believe this is where the sigmoid module has shown some promise??
Thats certainly how I see things. With the caveat that I wonder if the pinkish results are in any way correct or acceptable. Itâs such a nasty effect that a good tool/algo should avoid it imho but perhaps Iâm missing some situation where itâs desirable.
edit: just to add that the pinkish thing is particularly noticeable with portraits. Weâve seen quite a few threads with people struggling with it.
A real hdr image from a Sony hdr video demo (4000 nits peak brightness),I have extract a frame and done the conversion to rec2020 floating point :
Sony 4K HDR Demo - Camping in Nature.mp4.7z (10.8 MB)
the frame
My version (actually it is sigmoid )
hdrframe.pfi (16.1 KB)
RGB per channel tonemapping
Darktable no preserve chrominance
Darktable preserve chrominance
Sigmoid with film-like hue preserve (the same used in rawtherapee)
2 Likes
Export from darktable in Rec2020, reload it, export as sRGB without any changes - how does that look?
1 Like
t004100.tif.xmp (6.3 KB)
Exported from darktable as tiff 32bit, the conversione to srgb is done in gimp, in dt iâve used the same settings as before
No preserve chrominance
Preserve chrominance
Good catch
Well, with the âoriginal frameâ, I still get horrible colours in darktable. But is that the file you processed (did you start with that JPG)? (Edit: I now see that you have uploaded your results.) Pinkish, does not convey the scorching heat, the glow.
Iâve started from the tiff in the zip, the jpeg named original is the tiff with way dark exposure compensation
I think itâs not that far from âSigmoid with film-like hue preserve (the same used in rawtherapee)â, but has more detail in the reds.
I processed the TIF using the attached sidecar:
t004100_01.tif.xmp (5.9 KB)
1 Like
Tried the best I could do with filmic (with my laptop display). So, âfilmic v6 max RGBâ after exposure, âtone equalizerâ, âcolor calibrationâ and âcolor balance rgbâ. I even use some âshadows and highlightsâ 
.
t004100.tif.xmp (5.1 KB)
On my PC âŚthe lightable view is fine but not the darktable viewâŚso this is without any exporting just toggling back and forthâŚI will confirmâŚfor the flowerâŚ
No matter what settings I use for the lightable thumbs including use the raw âŚI get this for the darktable previewâŚ
and this for the lightable oneâŚ
