@obe Mojn Olaf!
I believe that Boris answers some of your questions
in his Darktable tutorial episode 51.
Mvh
Claes fra Lund, Sverige
Some of this is for demonstration… the video are to show users how to edit. I am sure where appropriate that Boris has and uses some styles… that would be my guess.
Because …
…and, to get “reasonable” results use camera JPEGs. 
Real time saving.
For me, the mystery is why someone would abandon camera Jpeg and then automate the processing of raw files in such a way as to give all photos the same uniform look as camera does. 
By the way, jpegs can also be touched up.
I hope she pays you very well for the pressure she puts on you. 
I also have a recommendation for that. Shoot in JPG and in raw format. Send JPEGs to her immediately. 
That said, I do use the presets. But only when it makes sense in my opinion. In the video you can also see that I occasionally even transfer the entire history of one photo to another.
The fact that I use presets very sparingly has several reasons:
- I don’t like a one-size-fits-all approach unless it’s meant to serve a specific purpose. It leads directly to producing boring, predictable results.
- I actually see the raw file as “raw material”. The subject then dictates the direction of processing rather than a pre-made template. That doesn’t mean that every now and then, you can’t use a preset, it just means that the presets shouldn’t dominate the work. Breaking the routines also opens up the possibilities for new interpretations.
- in many cases, the subsequent corrections made after using a preset can take much more time than starting from scratch.
Because I can work much more precisely with diffuse or sharpen and also have much better control over possible artifacts that typically occur when increasing local contrast or sharpening.
The downside can be that - depending on the settings - the module can be very computationally intensive.
Contrast equalizer is also a great module and I like to use it.
7 Likes
I think there are a great number of people that view or at least have the mindset that the raw image as merely the same image just not compressed into a jpg, so free of compression aritfacts and dynamic range issues of the 8 bit format.
There is then great disappointment when a program like DT that does little to the image out of the gate offers up something that is not a jpg clone with tonnes of dynamic range to play with and wb not baked in…
Many people always using LR as the standard I feel believe this is what they get but I can’t really say as I have never used LR. I have also heard many people complain about the LR look also so as with all of this often beauty is in the eye of the beholder…
I think the path for people that truly need this for what they are doing with an to their images is to use the manufacturers software and then save it out with the most data possible for further editing… be that a TIFF or whatever and then proceed to do further edits in whatever software has the tools to make the further changes that they are looking for…
You have taken great lengths in a few videos to demonstrate matching but really like you I feel when I just start out I often end up at a more interesting image. But I am not trying to match a car or sporting event or some other subject matter that might be really important for some others…
I guess its really all about matching expectation with reality of what the raw developing process involves and selecting tools and workflows to support that wherever and whatever that might look like… keeping in mind that DT is not created with a design focus to give you a jpg clone with its current defaults. Even with that you can still fall back on the basecurve and often be fairly close and with the new module order so using it is not a major transgression or handicap IMO esp if the user needs something closer to the jpg to edit and doesn’t want to directly touchup the jpg itself…
5 Likes
Also the Lightroom users have started to rethink:
3 Likes
Thank you for all your comments
You can of course edit a raw photo so the result is superior to the out-of-camera jpg especially if the recording conditions were bad. However, it takes an effort (time and experiments) to achieve this improved image. Maybe it’s not worthwhile or you haven’t got the time to edit all photos from scratch (if you really want to start from scratch every time then filmic rgb should also be turned off). I think that my basic presets applied automatically produces a better result than the default jpg. Therefore, there is no need to shoot a jpg and a raw. See examples below.
The preset-result gives me a good indication of the quality and possibilities of the photo if I want to spend the effort to improve it. And I can show it to my wife immediately.
I appreciate the method demonstrated in the video. It is simple and powerful. Thank you for an excellent demonstration.
If you are a beginner and you haven’t watched this video then I think it can be really challenging to start with a flat raw photo and 60+ modules to choose from.
Flat rawfile
Rawfile edited automatically (presets)
Out-of-camera jpg
3 Likes
In the end I think it comes down to workflows…the good thing about DT is that you get a real sense of the raw without too much intervention and then there are all the tools and many ways to come up with a workflow that gets results and at the same time suits the style of the user…For some this works the other way and is overwhelming and the learning curve to get to a workflow is too daunting.
You seem to have found yours…
Your example is a nice edit but also its a starting image that maybe you could easily get by with the jpg… for example using the old dehaze preset and shadows and highlights on your screen shot jpg give me an image on quick review that is equal or maybe even better in some spots …but it becomes this vs that… I think some images can only be saved by editing the raw for sure but many esp if they are just going to be posted on a screen for sharing could easily be done using touched up jpg files… This is another element that often isn’t mentioned ie what is the intended use of the edit… Just some random thoughts from me…
@s7habo: Dear Boris, thanks for making all these very nice tutorials! I actually wonder, why you are using brilliance of highlights and shadows to increase contrast. Is there a technical difference to the contrast slider of the same module in preserving the hue or is it just about a finer control?
Best regards
Till
This is why we’ve got a section in the manual to cover a basic processing workflow. Of course I can’t make people read the manual but it really should be the first port of call for someone who’s finding it a challenge.
@s7habo Thanks for an interesting tutorial, may I request you to share your own presets for Diffuse & Sharpen module as shown in your last video.
Thanks!
2 Likes
My wife is the same way with me any time I shoot. Thats why I save raw in one card and jpeg in another. She can have the jpegs immediately. And I personally think my camera jpegs are pretty decent. The photos I edit are the cream of the crop anyway.
1 Like
Same here. 
Thank you for your sharing your expert knowledge so generously, the video was very useful (as were the previous ones).
One quick question: I remember Aurelien advising against a heavy use of the Perceptual Brilliance Grading section of the Color Balance RGB module in one of his video, because the underlying algorithm was not very robust. Indeed, I noticed that if you push the highlights slider a bit too much to the right when there are strong highlights in the image, large white blobs make a sudden appearance. Did you notice this and have any thoughts about it?
It’s tied to all the gamut mapping I believe so when you push to the upper border you get white or there was an attempted fix but that went to black I think…I think it’s known but not fixed yet
Yes, this is a known issue. I have written a bug report about it:
The temporary solution to this is to turn off filmic highlight reconstruction (quoted from flannelhead’s post):
“[…] Turn the threshold all the way up to 6 EV and transition slider all the way down to 0.25. At least with those settings I could no longer reproduce this sort of artefacts. […]”
Great, the workaround does work. Thank you so much for your swift reply!
Thank you for this very informative video, I learned a lot
1 Like