I have spent quite a lot of time over recent last days getting to use, and hopefully understanding something about the use of the darktable module ‘filmic’. I have done this by comparing filmic results with how I would have otherwise typically have processed my RAW data using other darktable modules, and I tested results over a very wide range of my typical RAW data.
My personal finding is that when filmic is applied to a ‘well exposed’ data set it can produce, rapidly and with minimal use, even without the use, of other modules, a satisfactory overall result that can closely emulate a JPG directly produced by the camera’s firmware. If however the RAW data is ‘difficult’ then filmic requires (for me) more time and effort than my normal process and requires substantial intervention with other modules.
When I encounter a set of similar images from a session, in my normal processing, I can often cut and paste basic ‘starter’ settings over the batch … filmic does not appear to respond well to such usage.
I shoot RAW as a part of an overall creative process much of which occurre within the darktable process. My output image products are not intended to emulate the work of the camera’s firmware nor are they necessarily intended to look exactly like the original subject matter. I never treat my images as a single entity but as a collection of elements each one needing individual attention; that is something that filmic’s process appears is unable to provide.
For those looking for simplified processing, filmic may provide a solution for specific instances … for me I would be concerned that the full potential of the RAW data set may be missed by what I see as a short cut solution.