Not to be left out of the picture, pun intended, here is a version with filmic. I had to adjust filmic controls in a way I had not done before, but the results speaks for itself.
Filmic + a dash of some sprinklings of Tone Equaliser + same sharpening and denoise settings used in images posted earlier. : I was a bit conservative, in my use of filmic, not wishing to push it to unnatural extremes, as the aim of this comparison was to arrive at a natural look in each case
Oh by the way there is another thread - most interesting which compares various raw processors using statistical analysis.
https://discuss.pixls.us/t/comparing-defaults-across-software
*And here is the in camera jpeg : *
For me this “study” has been quite informative, and the conclusion, not statistical obviously, I can only describe what my eye sees in the pictures. Your mileage may vary.
Each raw processors approach needs patience on the part of the user, to fully appreciate what direction the tool has taken. However it is these comparisons that give one a much better understanding of each tool. I highly recommend that time is devoted occasionally every few months to this kind of review/comparison with a few of your recent images.
From what I can see, filmic takes a purist approach that is closest I have come across, to the real life optics, of a camera capturing the scene. Filmulator and the in-camera algorithms, take more liberty with their creative licence, delivering images which can be more “alive”, but in truth, there are elements of more light bending in their approach.
This reminds me of the music industry, where the purer approach is digital, very accurately captured, but some want vinyl, even though we know it is a distorted version of reality. And so much of what we hear is based on the harmonic aberrations of exciters, distortion effects, compressors, valves, transformer, reverb, yet we find it the more pleasing, and things taste bland without these imperfections.
So I guess it could be decided based on intention. If I wanted to publish something scientific, in a journal - definitely filmic seems like the one to choose. But if I wanted to post to facebook, or instagram, then maybe filmulator is the better choice.
There is a similar parallel in the music instrument world. Especially in the category of instruments targeted at the less accomplished players, these instruments are designed to sound good in the shop, one touch - engaging sound, but these sounds have been fed with steroids. Only time and experience lets you realise how hyped they are, and over time you move on to the more expensive instruments which do not immediately sound as hyped, but this more natural expression, matches more closely with the advanced skills of those for whom it was intended. No instant gratification, but a lifetime of true musical pleasure.
So one size does not fit all. And it is gratifying to have improved my appreciation of the directions, that each of these tools takes.
While I absolutely respect Aurelien for his qualified stance on basing everything on a truly structured proven, extensible, future proof foundation, such as he has attempted to do with filmic, I would hope he appreciates that there must be some inherent non linearity in humanity that makes us gravitate towards the impure, the gritty, the out of this world.
We are the product of steamy sessions between a man and a woman, in some warm or cold places, and probably unideal location, many from unplanned accidents, not the thoroughly well planned in a lab supervised fertilisation.
I would hope that we would see in the future a darktable that accommodates both views. Provides the scientifically accurate transforms, but also leaves room for the creative transforms that have underpinned our experience of films, film photography and in-camera jpegs. These augmented reality transforms, also have a place in digital photography, and darktable should give us the opportunity to choose what kind of transform we wish to use.