DPReview darktable 4.2.0 post

11 Likes

One day someone will write an informed objective article about some FOSS software instead of just rewording the release note. Still we made it harder this time round by not having time to write a blog post.

9 Likes

Big thank you to @kofa for answering questions in the comments there.

7 Likes

Great how they posted the same screenshots as in last year’s articles. One from 3.0 and one from 4.0.

First of all, it’s great to see this featured on DPReview (inaccuracies aside).

I don’t mean to derail this thread, but I ran into a discrepancy on the Darktable web site, and I’m not sure where to report it.

I tried to load a RAW lossy compressed file from a Fujifilm X-T5 into Darktable 4.2.0, and it gave me an error that directed me to camera support | darktable

That page did not list the Fujifilm X-T5 as being supported by Darktable (it was missing from the table on that page, which is automatically generated from a different place).

That led me to the What's involved with adding support for new cameras | darktable page, which in turn links back to Pixls.us on this article What’s involved with adding support for new cameras

It turns out that Darktable does support the Fujifilm X-T5, but it just doesn’t support the RAW lossy compressed files.

Anyway, I think the Darktable web site should probably list the Fujifilm X-T5 as supported, but it seems like there is a trail that goes cold when I try to figure out where to report it.

Just to be clear, I’m not asking for lossy RAW file support. That was just an experiment. I want the lossless raw files. But what I’m really trying to say is that the Darktable web site should probably say that it does support the Fujifilm X-T5, when in fact, it does. It took me a while to figure that out.

1 Like

While the web site could indeed be improved (feel free to report issues at Issues · darktable-org/dtorg · GitHub), both of the relevant pieces of information are in fact in the dt 4.2 release notes.

1 Like

I can only but agree. Thanks a lot to @kofa!

3 Likes

In this review, it looks like the writer actually installed the software and used it. :slight_smile:

Indeed, better written than the first one but unfortunately mixes up presets and styles, and suggests that focus peaking is new. Ah well, you can’t have everything.