Much the same for me. 1 minute edit in current darktable master. I maybe pushed the saturation a bit more than I normally would:
DSC01997.ARW.xmp (6.7 KB)
DSC01997.ARW.xmp (6.7 KB)
1 Like
Brilliance in rgb color balance might do the trick try that…
I tried a little but wasn’t sure how bright or desaturated you were looking for??
And I think not trying to get so much out of it. It can certainly give a great result at times wrt all aspects of a photo and other times it should just be used to map DNR and leave the rest to other tools. I still think this is often the issue, ie people trying to get “too” much out of filmic rather than just using it for its primary mission of managing DNR…
I still don’t understand what people are expecting to get out of it. I literally only expect it to set the upper and lower bounds of my data. Sometimes I don’t need to do much more than that, but if I do its in Tone Eq or Color Balance mostly, not in filmic itself (sans highlight reconstruction).
2 Likes
I think the discussion has veered off from the topic; the content is good and interesting though. I suggest we move this to a new thread @paperdigits.
I agree we should stick to style but lets face it filmic is the main player in a style that will use the scene-referred workflow so as long as the discussion sticks to how one might better use DT to best match a jpg is still on topic as far as I can see. Not that I really care one way or the other. I think one experiment would be to actually see how people do on a few photos that they struggle with using both workflows rather than compare against each other. Is it that one or the other is actually better and easier to get the jpg look. Then maybe the answer is use that one. If it turns out not to be scene referred then maybe use scene referred for the technical advantages it can offer but don’t try to shape it in to the jpg look as the other method is better suited for that particular goal… In any even it will be interesting to see what people propose.
This is my little modification I mentioned earlier to the colormatch script to use it with a Spyderchecker 24. The raw/jpg matched icc gives nice results in my opinion…and could assist in getting closer to the jpg out of the gate.
1 Like
I added the OOC jpeg to to post above for comparison.
So which one is right? We’ve had a number of interpretations above. I tried to keep the saturation low since that was something that @OK1 said he was looking for. Did I go too far? Maybe. I think probably I like @priort 's the best. The point is you set the sliders how you like, depending on what you are trying to achieve. All the edits above were done quickly using just a basic set of modules that you would typically use for all images, nothing fancy.
1 Like
OK1 wrote:
In simple terms, there was a lot of Red channel in the raw file, but not clipped in any way. … The apps which enable a brighter image, also distort the colour from what I know it is.
Your image DSC01997.ARW developed in sRGB colorspace has red values near or at 100%. So any operation to lighten the image will change the green and blue channels far more than red, which changes the colour.
I thought the purpose of this thread was to find a darktable process that transforms a raw to the OOC JPEG. I’m not a darktable expert. Using a more primitive tool, ImageMagick, in Lab space, a simple gain-and-bias of L* and gains in each of a* and b* gives a result that is 0.025 RMSE from the embedded JPEG. It looks close to the JPEG except for the saturated reds.
Where L* is in the range [0,1], and a* and b* are in the range [-0.5,+0.5]:
L' = L * 1.207378 + 0.0546299
a' = a * 1.028002
b' = b * 1.272474
I guess I’m wondering why no mention of the algorithm behind RawTherapee’s auto-matched tone curve. It’s a pretty straightforward calculation of the CDF of the linear RGB and the embedded JPEG, and using those to calculate the curve that would transform the linear RGB to the same distribution as the JPEG.
That should get one quite close…
2 Likes
From a non-colour managed screen @snibgo’s rendition looks closest to what I would consider an out of camera experience. How did you arrive at those gain-bias values?
@ggbutcher Yes, I find RT’s matching to be good enough in most cases, at least for me because I set my camera’s engine to be as neutral and untainted by processing as possible.
1 Like
If the ooc JPEG is considered a good starting point, I would only use the color balance module and no filmic.
Top: ooc JPEG
Bottom: darktable color balance module plus minimal sharpening (contrast equalizer).
DSC01997.ARW.xmp (5.4 KB)
3 Likes
This is a very good point. Does this picture need fimic. Makes me recall a video by @s7habo where I think he only used colorbalance to to a series of photos…
1 Like
For comparison, here what I would do “freestyle”. Due to the limited dynamic range also without filmic but with the use of much more modules to make small changes.
DSC01997.ARW.xmp (18.2 KB)
Thanks for offering your styles maybe also a raw for each so that we could see what you see styles in action …
Good idea. Som raw files from 6D here Scene referred, display referred, and the Colour Science of Canon/Fujitsu/Nikon/etc. in Darktable (filmic-rgb module in particular) - #8 by Peter
How did you arrive at those gain-bias values?
The formula for the L* channel is:
newL = oldL * gain + bias
… where:
gain = (SD of L channel of JPEG) / (SD of L channel of raw)
bias = (mean of L channel of JPEG) - (mean of L channel of raw)*gain
where SD is the standard deviation. SD is a measure of the spread of values. For the L channel this is tonal contrast. For the a* and b* channels, this is chroma. So multiply a channel by a number greater than 1 increases tonal contrast or chroma.
For a* and b* channels, I assumed zero bias. A bias in these channels would change hues.
I thought as much, though it is always good to elaborate or clarify, making it easier for our readers. 
That sure takes all of the fun away!
Thanks. For those like me, new to all of this Light magic, this is a whole new universe, like rocket science.
I just want to mention one thought: I think Fuji (maybe) has the best out of the box look or looks and that’s because of their film simulations, especially the effects Provia and Classic Chrome. I think it is remarkable and no coincidence that Fuji is one of the very few camera producers that are doing comparatively well financially, because afaik most camera producers are in trouble. Fujis looks simply sell.