Let it be known one thing for everybody: be careful with the order in the pipeline.
Because a module can be moved up or down.
It is not the same thing that above is sigmoid and below is exposure.
as up is exposure and down is sigmoid
The results are different.
Since this module too relies on the middle grey value this makes sense as the two edit would have a different one going in to the sigmoid calculations…I think that would be the correct explanation…
Modules have default positions for a reason. You may like the reversed order, but be aware that using exposure before the tone mapper is similar to recording more light or using a higher ISO, and there is no clipping in the scene-referred part of the pipeline. Applying it after the tone mapper no longer operates on linear data (so adding 1 EV no longer behaves like adding 1 EV at capture time), and any value over 100% will be hard-clipped in the output, unless you tone it down somehow.
Been going over images from the last couple of years to see what sigmoid makes of them. Results are really very impressive, and quick. The differences compared to my default Rawtherapee results are quite small but there seems to be a general smoothness and naturalness to the results. The tone mapping works really well. Exposure becomes a powertool! Tone EQ shines as well because nothing strange happens.
All this is with per channel colour processing. RGB ratio just wrecks the midtone colours even if highlights sometimes have more colour and detail to them. I still don’t understand how people find the filmic and rgb ratio results acceptable.
this 
Did the same over the last week. Just looking over images of the last two decades and making some edits, just because.
Some images, i knew i had been fiddeling around with filmic, where so easy to process. Just one example of many:
an old family group photo, where i tried to match the jpeg export from LR. With filmic i was really struggeling to get the skin tones right (and not mess up the rest of the photo). With sigmoid it just fell together.
I can only show a 1:1 excerpt, but it illustrates my point.
Mind you, this all all just individual taste and in the meantime I have probably generally more experience with DT.
Your example above is one of the more stark comparisons. I’m not sure results such as the middle one can qualify as correct or good enough. I even doubt individual taste actually covers it. It’s probably more that it’s accepted as a compromise for other more desirable traits.
Salmon fire indeed
Great comparison. I think in this case, sigmoid preserved the positive aspects of LR in terms of color, while outperforming it in other ways. The LR rendering was a bit too close to a “blown out” look here.
I doubt that caucasian skin is that yellowish - so the sample just give a comparison to lightroom color rendition…
It is in the sun but I was thinking the same thing wrt how yellow it looked… If there was sun DT filmic edit didn’t grab that either…
I am looking on a phone so maybe I’m skewed a bit
As others have mentioned the yellow is obviously from the scene. The salmon is not.
Yes, the Photo was taken at sunset. Sorry but I couldn’t post the complete picture.
It’s more of an illustration, what I was struggling with.
My actual point is, the results of sigmoid are easier obtained and more in line with my expectations.
I concur all the points that nosle stated in his post 124 (edit: post no.).
Just wanted to share my experience, because I’m really happy with the new sigmoid module.
BTW, talking about fire: have you tried this file? Comparing filmic color science v5/v6 - #72 by age
With sigmoid, you can turn it into something like this:
filmic, set to RGB (display) merging space
and
lightness mode:
But the same settings work horribly for blues:
Does the extreme luminance slider do anything in this case to reverse or clean up the white??
Filmic doesn’t change middle grey , so for skin to be affected like this, your exposure is horribly wrong . I never never ever have seen skin color change by filmic , except If the sun is shining on it (so it are highlights )
I’d be very interested to play with a raw that shows this.
I might just add that filmic does ‘change’ colour (compared to sigmoid for example) in that it doesn’t increase any saturation as it increases contrast.
Most traditional tools that affect contrast have an effect on saturation at the same time.
Filmic goes to some length to avoid shifting colours… which (to me) in some cases leads to weird looking results, especially if one has increased contrast - until one goes to it’s ‘partner’, color balance rgb, and gives a big whack of chroma and saturation. Then things look good - usually.
This isn’t necessarily (i can never spell that word - thanks autocorrect!) applicable to the comparison image above - I personally agree that the sigmoid version looks much better than filmic and think that this is an example of filmic being mathematically correct, which looks wrong - to some people, like myself…
BUT I do think that this stuff is a matter of taste as well. And it should be.
After all, if we all agreed 100% on what things should look like in a photo, just think how horribly, mind meltingly boring the whole art scene would be! 
No variation, just an accurate representation of reality - what would be the point?
I pointed this out to Aurelien way back but yes increasing contrast in tools such as LAB also does require chroma/saturation increase to look natural. But the filmic results are even worse than pure lab contrast though visually related. Colours go more haywire in filmic whereas lab contrast delivers a similar “dead” look.
Mmmm… I’ve done very little with LAB so can’t compare, but interesting. I don’t really have enough technical knowledge for some of this discussion 
I like filmic for many things (one point is that I don’t many portraits?), especially with the other options it has, but I really like the new sigmoid module too. Some photos are so much easier to get looking really good.
So from my point of view we have the best of both worlds - filmic and sigmoid 
Reminder: to add value to our discussion, be sure to show qualitative and quantitative examples in as many places as you can. Many of you are already doing that. Thank you.
