And while videos may be a great learning tool, they are a disaster as a reference.
For that, written text/a manual is much, much better.
I do use the manual to see what the modules and their controls are supposed to do.
But how that translate to changes in my images, and how the different sliders and modules interact, that’s something I learn mostly by experimenting. Videos or descriptions can help there in suggesting which way to go for a certain effect or teaching how to use a module, but not more (nor less) than that.
Seminars are great, so I think there should be a section in dtdocs with links to (online-)courses about dt.
But for me an academy is most efficient to dive deeper, after you already have a basic understanding, and did some experimentation on your own, because then you are able to ask the right questions.
So I still think that a written handbook is needed, if dtdocs is not the right place for it, it probably will be some kind of wiki.
A wiki sounds like a good solution, provided it gets enough traffic.
I think the key challenge is to get a wiki up and running with enough good information so that users see good value on their very first visit to the wiki. It shouldnt be too hard to sweep through the many px threads to extract good “howtos” as a starter pack.
I would be very happy to spend time improving and extending such a wiki if people agree that is the way forward.
I think probably you won’t get that many visits to a (mostly) developer wiki. The darktable.org website is fairly easy to write for now that it’s been transferred to hugo, so we could probably have a section there to house such guides. Of course the lowest barrier to entry is posts on pixls as they don’t require submitting pull requests to a repo. But then they’re harder to find later on.
Do you see this going on for a long time though? It is my understanding that the quick depreciation of tutorials and videos is due to darkatble’schange of the pipeline from display to scene’ as well as some refinements done to newly introduced modules after receiving feedback from users. I always assumed that a few releases down the line maybe in 2 years, things will start stabilizing and while new module might still be introduced old ones won’t change as much. Is my assumption correct or do you still have much changes in the works?
I agree fully with what you said. I rely on documentation as a learning tool. The most recent version is greatly improved.
When I said experiment though I meant really experiment, like using the test shots from imaging resources and then do a systematic approach to learning. Practice parametric masking or other adjustments on this predictable image and then move on to a photo…something along the lines of that…for sure just moving sliders around while not the worst thing is not a recipe to learn
It’s actually quite difficult for developers who are intimate with the code to put themselves in the shoes of users who lack that specialized knowledge and write documentation that meets those users at their level. For a developer to be able to produce documentation that helps “regular” users, he/she needs to (among other things):
be willing to write documentation
be good enough at writing in the language of their choice to state things clearly
be able to identify all the permutations and combinations in a component (including the ones that “nobody in their right mind” would try, because sooner or later someone will)
be able to write airtight descriptions that leave no ambiguity.
Agreed…quite entertaining.
Bingo.
You’ve assembled a good set of questions here that you can use as the basis for some experimentation. Armed with the results of that experimentation, you could write a clear description of your findings. If the reason you didn’t initially understand the tools was that the wording of the text in the manual was ambiguous, you could propose a change in wording for the manual. If your findings are beyond the scope of the manual, there are several options for disseminating the information.
From chatting to a few people on pixl.us, I know that several of us have our own “cheat sheet” and howto documents, gleaned from experience and blog threads. I would love to share this info.
What I need to get started is a wiki framework that I can populate and update. darktable.org was mentioned as a good home - how hard would it be to set up wiki functionality on that site?
Markdown is really simple, so a basic text editor should be fine. You can build the darktable.org site locally if you are on Linux (see the README page on the repo) to see the result of your efforts. If you really want a point-and-click interface you could use hackmd.io to generate the markdown.
I use Ghostwriter myself. It’s specialized, and easy to use. There is markdown cheat sheet and a preview window. All what is needed to render correct markdown
I’m learning CAD right now, and the two-punch approach I’ve relied on for decades is proving it’s worth: 1) a comprehensive reference manual, and 2) at least one “get-started” tutorial. If I’m staring at a slider wondering what it does, I want a reference where I can easily find that specific definition. But, getting started does require some sort of “story”; I left FreeCAD behind because I couldn’t find such oriented to my use case.
My hack software rawproc has a comprehensive reference in the help file, but no tutorial material. Probably why no one else is using it… With a bit of free time coming up I’ll be doing a video or two.
But my point is, both types of documentation are needed to both get started and then to master bit-by-bit as new situations arise. And, I’ve found with digital photography there’s an underlying knowledge base that’s needed, that of the digital imaging mechanism. Hard to wrangle a slider if you don’t understand the thing it’s working on…
I’d at least suggest RawTherapee or ART which IMO are a bit more intuitive than darktable but aren’t throwing peolpe into Adobe’s gaping maw of mediocrity. Different tools for different users is just fine!
First, the Raw Photography tools - WOW did not know that channel existed! Second the work of the coders and writers for DT will never be appreciated enough!
As far as DT goes my mission for it was to replace Adobe period. Dt has succeeded 1000%. So I thought I could refer DT to my friends but was consistently told no without some extended hand holding. The reason given was 1) Where do I start and 2) Where do I find contrast, exposure, vibrance, etc. and on. Can I do what I want - yes. Can I do it better in DT - yes. Can I do it more accurately in DT -yes. How did I get there - Bruce, Rico, etc., and yes some of came from a well written manual. I have to admit I have a OneNote script I follow - but that is the price of admission to such an excellent piece of software. So, the question is DT for anyone trying to get out from under Adobe? I don’t think so unless you are willing to put in the time yourself to educate yourself. I think that is the price of admission to open source software as is occasionally buying Rico a cup of coffee. When people ask me what DT cost, I tell them only the time for them to sit down with me and go through at least one RAW photo.
I would reflect back and video, manual, more videos, this forum, more videos and manual again got me going. In other words all the above comments are very relevant and true.
As a side some of us felt confident and then Scene Referred threw a lot of us for a loop. I did have to wait for some videos to come out to get me back up to speed.
