Filmic RGB - Remap the tonal range of an image by reproducing the tone and color response of classic film.
Ok, fine. I get it, it’s nice to have a module that simulates a “classic film”.
But why make it enabled by default and make it a crucial part of the default workflow?
How many more ‘something is wrong with my colors’ threads are we’re going to see?
And i don’t think that a lot of users want to spend that much time learning the tool, especially that the effects are hardly better and sometimes worse than than in the regular approach other software provides.
I don’t want to sound dismissive, I appreciate all the work done etc, but I think it’s a valid question.
Well to do scene referred edits you would generally need it or some form of tonemapping to handle images wide range of brightness…you can disable it by choosing none in preferences… I do even though I often use filmic… I like to see the image without any manipulation at the start.
Looking to achieve this sort of advantage by not clipping the data
Well, you just missed the fundamental point : it is by default because it is required to have a tonal map at some point for display/print purpose. Maybe reading the corresponding documentation section will help.
Guys, you’re missing the point. I know why it’s enabled and I know how to disable it.
The point is, why ‘classic film’ simulation ‘tone mapper’ is the default tone mapper.
And let’s not get started about all the unnecessary complexity of this module. All this complexity is absolutely not required to achieve the effects you can get from it.
Because until the sigmoid option there was no other scene referred option and at some point there must have been a collective decision to create an editor to handle images with this approach (ie scene referred editing) … At least that would seem to be reason enough??
Basically the filmic tone mapper is trying to manage dynamic range and the reference to film is simply how the sensitivity of film behaves in shadows and highlights… what DT is attempting to do is manage this in an advanced way that does not throw away data… you can of course argue how well it succeed and how this is implemented but basically you are working with this
If you assume that the older display referred editing would basically give you a version where the data outside the box would be clipped to black and white and the scene referred method is trying to preserve as much of that data as possible while still having to pack it in the same box then it should be obvious why things are done as they are.
If you are happy sliding exposure along the DNR axis and taking what fits in the box then you can make display referred edits.
If you want to try and squeeze more out of it then you go with the current defaults … also DT of course tries to keep the data linear longer than some software so that things like EV make proportional changes and not changes dictated by a curve set early in the pipeline… The basecurve has in fact been moved in DT so edits are actually improved even when not using filmic…
Again you can argue that the implementation fails or is too difficult or whatever but it follows a sound theory and a design to maximize the available data…perhaps some of the extra things that go on with color and hue present challenges but again they are working toward making things behave when you apply transformations to the data… it would seem the issue is that behaving doesn’t always lead to a pleasing result… but I think there are solutions, work-arounds and upgrades for when and where these issues arise…
By “classic film” I have for my part, as an amateur in the field, not understood e.g. “Gone with the wind” or “Technicolor” or similar, but instead rendering with a tone curve with shoulders akin to the variable sensitivity (within differing exposure) of a silver based film emulsion, rather than a straight line (which suddenly passes a clipping point) as the sensor more or less follow when registering a scene. Which I have thought is a good idea since, that’s the basis for how we have been used to see images.
You can change this behavior so that editing does not start with “filmic rgb” enabled by default:
Global preferences → Processing → auto-apply pixel workflow defaults → choose: none o display-referred.
It seems most of the developers do not agree with you.
Your options are:
come up with something better, demonstrate it, and convince the developers;
change your configuration, and when you see a PlayRaw, or someone asking for help, show people how your approach works, what output it produces;
fork darktable, and publish + support your own version
find another tool, one that works better for you.
You joined this forum in late October. Maybe spend a little time here, engage in polite conversation, and express your opinion while keeping in mind that the developers and users who like the scene-referred workflow see value in it, and have their reasons to do so.
I am clear on what you don’t want, ie no filmic as the default… What I am not so clear on is what you want… At this point its a bit like me being annoyed by the default font Microsoft chooses for word or the margins or whatever… They are not set in stone but they are a design decision I would guess about what is the best starting point…
Filmic supports a pixel processing pipeline created by those developing it designed to process the data in a linear scene-referred way. This was a direction of the software and the gateway for that pipeline to the display was filmic which evolved over time. If you were using DT for other reasons ie not this workflow but because you like the software then there is the option for a starting point via the basecurve and even some tools with darktable chart for example which can be used to come up with a starting style to match the jpg (I think this might be broken but it can be used in 3.6). Or like me you can set it to none and evaluate the image and decide how to edit it…
In this case the defaults are what they are to support the design philosophy of the software. And they are not set in stone. If people read the manual they can understand why this is and what the goal and implementation is and also what the options are so they are free to experiment. Just as is required with a number of the modules so as to find what settings give you the perceptual look that pleases you…
So after all that would you say the default should be none and if not what should it be in your mind rather that what it should not be…
You make very vague statements. What kind of further development is desired? How should a better naming look like? Please make suggestions on how you think something could be better.
If you don’t like darktable there is a simple solution: use another software.
Great, yet another echo chamber with everyone going defensive on a slightest comment that’s not fully positive.
Not sure if I’m willing to continue when called a troll, so have a nice one and good luck.
These forums require a lot a care and thought when commenting so that things are not taken out of context… and the content might also have cross over to others on the thread or other threads themselves
My comments back to you were hopefully trying to suggest why things were as they were and tease out from you what your suggestion might be given the context provided.
Hopefully not echoing but engaging or trying to… if I failed sorry. I reached the limits of my abilities…
