-
I agree, but I think there are also great artists among Adobe/closed source users.
-
What’s your quickest tempo at the piano? I gave it up at 125 forte, which is not really fast. Eventually I decided that I couldn’t exercise 4 hours per day and write a doctoral thesis, so I haven’t touched a piano in more than 10 years.
1 Like
It’s possible to make the UI more clearer imho.
Let’s start with the old workflow
Raw decoding → scene referred to display referred conversion (generally with the simple digital exposure compensation or some real tone mapping operators) → tone manipulation in display referred space
New workflow
Raw decoding → tone manipulation in scene referred space → scene referred to display referred conversion → tone manipulation in display referred space
In the tone manipulation in scene referred space group should be allowed only:
-white balance?
-tone equalizer (local adjustments)
-cdl (global adjustments)
In the scene referred to display referred conversion group could be allowed:
-exposure
-filmic
-other tm operators
Then come the problematic details enhancements, they could be done whenever in the pipe and in every color spaces, I wouldn’t consider they strictly related to scene referred or display referred workflow.
But I suggest to not remove for pure theoretical reasons the old but gold unsharp mask at the end of the pipe on the lightness channel.
In the end I find that having a tone mapping operator after rgb curves or shadow/highlights module could make soke some confusion.
Spoken like a true technician. By “grace” I infer the politically correct 2020 way to express something “given” to us when we are created. I can work as hard as humanly possible, for as many hours as is possible, but I will never be a great, or even respectable pianist. Tone deaf. Nor will I ever be a quarterback in the NFL. Not born with the size, coordination, body type.
I you don’t know what “pure” talent is, Aurelien, than you have missed much in life, my friend. You would know it when you saw it.
What is more sad? Someone blessed with loads of talent who does not use it - or someone with little talent who works like a beast but who will never achieve greatness, and knows it?
3 Likes
“Talent” or aptitude, will only carry you past the basics with ease. You still have to cultivate your skills. And I believe that, especially with something that doesn’t depend on physical prowless, that you can over come a lack of aptness by working on it.
There are zero NFL quarterbacks that don’t train hard or eat well.
6 Likes
Given by whom ? Created by whom ? As far as I’m concerned, people are born weak and stupid, and they have to make their way through life from scratch. There is zero evidence that we are born with some pre-programed skills AFAIK (reference needed if you think otherwise), and even if we were, these skills are probably just related to basic survival instincts. I believe that some kids get stimulated enough at young age to develop faster than others in some aspects.
Things that cannot be defined cannot be seen.
What’s your quickest tempo at the piano? I gave it up at 125 forte, which is not really fast. Eventually I decided that I couldn’t exercise 4 hours per day and write a doctoral thesis, so I haven’t touched a piano in more than 10 years.
Some artists are happy with an ocarina. Some expect a church organ with 5 keyboards, one foot keyboard, and 45 stops. My concern is we shouldn’t have to converge automatically to Adobe’s design just because it’s the biggest player. It’s about having choice. There is a difference between being good for the majority, and being better.
My latest teacher made me give up the metronome 14 years ago because it tends to make you play mechanically, so I can’t answer that. I can play fast enough for the piano to sound like a machine gun and not produce enjoyable music anymore, which kind of defeats the purpose.
No, I’m using the mere fact that some artists met their audience long after their death (first name coming to mind : Van Gogh). Since every conversation about art and artists happens on a timeline that is forever blind on the future, you always need to keep an opening on that future and be careful about drawing conclusions on the work based on audience reception. That’s why I try to keep my statements vague enough. Plus… which audience ? The popular one, the avant-garde one, the new-rich-with-no-taste-trying-to-buy-in-their-social-status one ? It’s too fluid and dependent on context to base a reflection on it.
And even non-deliberate, this is still communication. So that’s still an important part of the mix. Especially since artists actively build exhibitions. Nobody is forcing them to present their work, they chose to.
That’s ad-hominem when you use someone’s background to infer on what he might have read or not, and use that infered read corpus to conclude on the validity of the argumentation whitout really making your case against it.
2 Likes
We are all born with variations in our genetic make-up (which might be considered to have been ‘given’ to us when we are created). There is evidence that intelligence and academic ability has a genetic component (Pleiotropy across academic subjects at the end of compulsory education | Scientific Reports), though environmental factors must also be important. That we are born with “pre-programmed skills” or abilities seems highly unlikely but there are almost certainly variations in our ability to learn and adapt to the world that come from our genetic makeup.
How we direct those abilities (to art, science etc.) may well be due in part to the stimulation we receive in our early years. But this sort of research is still in its infancy and we shouldn’t dismiss the idea that creativity and artistic ability might also have a genetic component, and that some people will therefore naturally find certain things easier than others. The nature vs. nurture debate is a long-running one and is sill far from resolved.
You might also find the following article interesting, which discusses the genetic basis of musical ability: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073543/
2 Likes
I like the word “image” better than the word “art”. It’s less idealized, among other things.
I’ m guessing this is about my post? My tone might have been more direct than I normally would have but the author has repeatedly expressed his preference for directness and also practiced it towards others. I really, really would never use uneducated in a derogatory way, I simply don’t value education like that.
My day job has involved a lot of engineer artist collaborations and I naturally have both engineer and artist friends. I was trying to show how education and work often structures peoples thoughts and that the text showed evidence of engineer structure misapplied to art topics.
I’d expect art thinking in the technical threads wouldn’t be very well received at all and that criticism of it would be non controversial.
This is interesting because in my experience this is partly what drives the insane art markets. People with positions that earn them absurd amounts of money live brutally alienated lives and come to see owning art as some holy way to connect to being human. This is pseudo psychology but having seen it to many times I can’t shake the idea.
I’ve mentioned this in another thread but I think it’s important to point out that most photography classed as art is a recording (naturally don’t have statistics but I can’t see anyone familiar with the art world disagreeing) . The idea that photography is more art when it contains more craft doesn’t match reality. The word “fine art photography” has little to do with art. I’m only pointing this out as I’ve seen this misunderstanding quite frequently. Even if people actually know this it doesn’t come out in the texts.
Personally I’m very critical of the role and position of art in our society. Having it separated out and compartmentalised into an idealised elite thing up for consumption by the extremely wealthy or hung in very special environments away from peoples lives doesn’t appeal to me. I like people doing various things at their preferred level of ambition and discussing it at places like pixls.us. I also like having tools that can do complex things with amazing fidelity at the cost of more knobs.
2 Likes
Heavenly father Darktable
1 Like
I think the part “I’m tired of repeating” is setting the mood.
But that’s OK, you need it to say! Honesty is better, I appreciate bluntness!
I also like Linus for being straight and speak what he thinks.
It’s OK if there is a reason, but needs a mature audience.
1 Like
I completely agree!
It has been my experience that the default solution these days ie to dumb things down and if they are not “dumbed” down then people move on…blinking apps…one slider magic image fixers, 30 second sound bites, twitter length text bursts…you get the idea is becoming the norm. My daughter now teaches a class for grade 9 and 10 kids that cannot read and write (they can’t fail so this now happens with increasing frequency)…they all have a phone and play with their apps but they function at a grade 1 or two reading level at best. They wont and most often can’t use a computer as all they know are phone apps. The schools keep buying computers and tablets for them to work on but its not much good when you can’t read or write and the thought of learning a “software” program is too much…so its a culture I think. I think @anon41087856 is expressing some frustration that at times he is at odds with this world. There need not be that issue if people would just understand at the outset that DT is a free “technical” tool at the moment being designed to be as technically precise and correct as it can be and offering a very broad spectrum of tools and capabilities to edit digital raw files (this is math no way around it). Technical software has always been and likely will always be performance and capability first and ease of use later esp since almost always for simplicity you loose control. Very few people are debating his math although he would likely welcome that however many people complain about other trivial issues. I follow many of the forums and maybe it is my training but generally I try to search and read a bit first before engaging in a discussion for help or suggestions so that I can participate and not just make it a one way street. Perhaps we need a unified spot that becomes the defacto resource for DT so that the same questions are not asked over and over. DT often reminds me of the software that I have used in the lab over the years. It may not be the prettiest but it has almost every feature you could ever need control your image and maybe that is also the greatest issue is that there are a large number of ways to do this and several combinations that work…I guess when you have spent entire weekends or 12 hour days sitting at a mass spec and having it need to process a 1 hour sample run before you can try the next parameter then messing around in DT seems like a breeze. I am not saying simplicity or ease of use should be ignored and it would be a shame if it ever was a detracting element for the software but the basics of raw image processing is first math and if you master the math and you are lucky to be creative which I am not they you can play the artist…Where possible DT is just trying to give everyone access to the math…not assume the math and give it a single slider…I think there are phone apps for that…
9 Likes
I think I have a different approach.
A) Photography/Artist
I shoot photos since grammar school but I never considered myself an artist. What I do is craftsmanship.
I have learned how to handle a camera, I can use the camera and let other people see my take on a person or a scenery. This is not art for me; in my specialty communication is a key factor (more than camera handling) and that can be learned. It might be a gift, but it can be achieved through training, too. If my - or anybody else’s - photography is considered art, then it is done so by the beholder.
B) Software as an artist’s tool
darktable is my tool of choice. It can do way more than I can understand and that’s totally OK. I don’t need to understand everything nor do I need every module. I found my way towards “my” modules by trial and error; now those modules are in the seven groups and I go through them from left to right.
darktable is a tool. A very good one if you ask for my opinion, but not more than a tool. Like a hammer it can be used for profane or art work, it can drive a nail into a plank or it can drive a chisel over, in and through a marble block and help create a sculpture. It’s not limited to or exclusively made for one of the two purposes.
You got a nail or a chisel to drive some inches forward? Get the right hammer - a small, light one or a big, heavy one, depending on your strength and the goal you want to achieve. darktable is this hammer for me. I use it for my work and in my way, others could use it differently - like with most tools ;o)
10 Likes
Pierre was using one of the nuances he mentioned earlier. Pulling your finger out (in which phrase the words “of your arse” are silent), or getting your finger out of your arse, is getting on with the job, making an effort, not relying on others to do your work. Getting your head out of your arse is taking a look around you to see what’s happening instead of pretending you can survive within our own bubble.
2 Likes
I totally agree with this. There are a variety of software progs around for image manipulation, covering most levels if not all. At my own camera club, less than forty members, I have pointed some members to a variety of OSS instances, guided by what they have told me they are looking for. Most tell me darktable is too complex for them. Others are perfectly happy to pay through the nose for inferior commercial software they haven’t the first clue how to use because they think it looks “more professional”.
IMHO @anon41087856, in an earlier submission, went to great lengths to explain his thoughts in redesigning the workflow for v3. He actually went on to offer a simpler layout, easily implementable, for newcomers to darktable, also suitable for those who did not need or want the greater complexity offered by the retention of legacy modules. Further, he pointed out how the same results as in discarded modules could be obtained using either retained legacy or new modules.
3 Likes
Probably the discussion of “Art” is a distraction… possibly because the visual arts are something of an abberation due to the notion of conceptual art, which has been turned to benefit the art market. The performing arts still demand technical competence. Then again, in his autobiography, Philip Glass quotes Ornette Coleman pointing out that the music business has nothing to do with music… at the end of the 50’s, I think.
In looking for a definition of the user-base of darktable, it may be better to consider just those that care about their photos… measured by Mike as the willingness to pull their finger out and learn something about their tools. The same people might recognise themselves for using a certain level of manual control of their cameras (or not), but in any case asking themselves what is a “good” photo, and trying to achieve that. It may be that no one else appreciates their photos: think Vivian Meier, or think what might have been Jackson Pollock’s fate if he hadn’t met Peggy Guggenheim.
Which is not to say dt couldn’t be improved by better tool-tips, or a more coherent use or explanation of the different things you can do with a scroll-wheel… but they are secondary issues.
For those who just want a free tool but aren’t willing to make an effort… well, no one is obliged to help if you aren’t willing to contribute. There are things you can buy from Adobe, there will surely be again some advertising funded device from Google.
2 Likes
A brief introduction of myself: an aerospace engineer, and I write the software I use myself. First on Un*x workstations which were over the years gradually replaced by Linux machines. Digital photography came into my life some 10 years ago partly for documentation purposes, partly to be able to use (my own) copyright free images, and partly as a hobby (again after many years).
I have never ever used Photoshop or Lightroom (so the UI/UX of those programs are unfamiliar to me). I have been using Gimp since the time Wilber was introduced as the mascot, and used Gimp in those days predominantly for creating and editing figures with numerical results (and I still use it for those purposes as well). The last time I bought MS Office was when it came bundled with a brand new laptop running W98. Since around 1998 I use (pdf)LaTeX exclusively for all of my reports and Star Office → Open Office → Libre Office for letters etc.
I love to know the physics and like to know the equations as well. It is simply the case that when you know why something happens it is easier to remember next time you encounter it (one tends to forget a trick quickly, even within a week). That is how I use complicated tools like DarkTable, RawTherapee etc. Always asking myself what does this and why does it the way it does - when in doubt consult the manual! Others, who are not into physics and maths, will use such tools differently. Which is perfectly fine. And there are of course a myriad of grey schales in between them. And also the use from the world to your own screen, or all the way to print, or wall. Or from art to documentary…
One advantage of (numerical) photography (for normal uses) is that is not a safety critical application (the result is “just a pretty picture”). The case is different with the wonderful world of numerical simulations where it can become serious and liability issues are an important consequence. My experience the last years with young engineers (of several nationalities) and complex software is that they do not have a clue, and worse are not interested either why the results are the way they are (“the computer says no” kind of responses). Also the power of scripts (be it bash, Perl, Python or whatever) is not appreciated. When I was younger, when you wanted to simulate something you had to program it yourself first. And I still do… the power of scripting is not to be underestimated. And when the data is massive I use a decent programming language and a compiler (leaving out discussing vendor lock in - I am now and in the future the owner of my own data).
The previous paragraph does not touch an important aspect, and that is experience. Napoleon introduced law books on the continent, and these law books are open and free to anyone to be used (open source if you like). You can get them, and study them. But this will not transform you into a lawyer. You can go to a Do-It-Yourself store and get a super duper pro hammer. But this will not transform you into a carpenter. You can get a pro camera and pro software… but this does not transform you into a pro photographer. Whatever you goal is, you will need proper training and above all experience. A popular statement is that you will need about 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” in order to become world-class in any field. The 10,000 hours may be true or not, but the English proverb “practice makes perfect” certainly holds (and applies even when you are talented).
Back to the primary question now whether DarkTable is too complicated or not. My take is, of course, it is not. That does not mean that some details might be more helpful - think of tooltips (I can imagine that for must users here DT, or RT, is not the only tool they use), layout, module exclusion when they bite (when you use one grey out the other), etc. A complex and complicated SW is never finished. Simple use and a wealth of options are more or less orthogonal to each other. To me the options/sliders help to understand as a memory aid what the module is going to do. As long as you can experiment and revert back to a (decent) default, just go and play. And learn!
If I need a quick simple solution I always revert to ImageMagick’s convert. Is a bit more effort needed then Gimp is my first choice. DT and RT are for “real pictures” and I aim to get it right in camera and only very rarely I need to finish up in Gimp (which runs finally, finally also in 16/32-bit). Horses for courses and DarkTable is a damm good one ;- )
6 Likes
Me too!! We need a BOF session somewhere… 
Erm… BOF???
Meaning?
1 Like