Hmm, I fear this does not solve the issue:
Nice….it is really hard to predict the outcome so you sometimes have to try all of them. Honestly I often go with none and bump the saturation in filmic up or down to please my eye. I can’t point you to a reference right now but I am confident that AP has commented more than once that none are better than others just they use different math to try and manage rgb ratios to preserve color. Obviously depending on the content of the image some will work better than others for the desired end result I guess….They are fairly well explained here darktable 3.6 user manual - filmic rgb
1 Like
One more thing that I find hard to comprehend: … In some ways the ‘dynamic-range-mapping’ chart shows more clearly how filmic is reassigning the various tones. If I simply play with the chart I can clearly see how it is possible to expand or compress an incredible range of incoming data to fit onto my display.
But here is my problem. The number of tonal steps (in the display) always remains constant with just 2 steps above the 18% position.
Surely, as we move from high-key to low-key lighting the expectation that I had is that the number of tones above the mid point should change in the same way that we see the number of steps changing below the mid point.
Can somebody explain this to me …
I am using the latest daily git on Linux.
Keep in mind that the EV scale used there is logarithmic
The “18%” position corresponds to “display middle gray”, so it is a fixed point at rgb (0.5, 0.5, 0.5).
“Display white” is another fixed point, at rgb (1,1,1). And the distance between fixed points is
constant (2.7 EV in this case, iirc).
As the EV scale is logarithmic, you can’t reach display (0,0,0), but you can fit an infinity of steps in there. (and of course, as the display uses integers, low values will get rounded to 0.0, to keep things simple)
I think @anon41087856 explained all that much better…
1 Like
Yes, that is all fully understood … but when we are in the process of adjusting our images the lineal view does make more intuitive sense … or is it just me?
When adjusting your image you should look at your image and not so much at the filmic graphs.
3 Likes
Because your display remains the same no matter what, it’s good old sRGB (or at least, we assume it), so 12.67 EV of DR. And your SDR display always has 2.45 EV between middle grey (18%) and white (100%). Whatever your settings are, whatever your scene is, your screen remains 12.67 EV sRGB with white at 100% and grey at 18% (and if it’s not sRGB, it will still be close in terms of dynamic range). High-key or low key only decides how the histogram is shaped, but the luminance capabilities are bound to hardware limitations and ICC standards.
5 Likes
Thank you for introducing “safe” in contrast options in filmic. Now, one can use the contrast slider without pushing values into negative (orange parts of curve).
Before, I(!) was unable to get such results using the other sliders although i guess it’s possible. For me, it was a missing part. Thanks again.
Is the “safe” options implemented in 3.4.1.1? If yes, where is it located?
“safe” is only recently implemented in filmic v5, which will be a part of darktable 3.6 release.
Sorry, I use the git-Version, forgot to mention.
Well I have some troubles using filmic too.
It works great to give you a great look in medium tones and with default parameters.
But when I have skies with clouds with billiant lights (and a bit overexposed in some places) I don’t get very good results. It tends to make skies dull and I want a bit more dramatic effect.
It is understandable to some point as any S curve or contrast curve will give you contrast in midtones at the expense of compressing highlights and darktones.
But It was easier for me to expand lights previously using curves or other tools.
With filmic I do not find easy to do that even if I am using color balance to expanse highlights (and apply it only to them with parametric masks).
There are many options in filmic, it does lots of things at the same time and I cannot understand all that technical stuff (even if I have read it several times in the last year, from version 3 of filmic, but it is getting more and more complex each version).
Here is an example with a raw photo of mine.
I have used color balance to tweak highight, midtones and darks separatly, some local contrast, contrast equalizer, and so.
I have upgraded the edit to use filmic v5.
Here is the raw (of course you can download it and play with it):
Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0
DSCF0262.RAF (23.9 MB)
This is the xmp with edit.
DSCF0262.RAF.xmp (17.2 KB)
I will try to edit it using DT 3.7 and color balance RGB instead and the new diffuse module to make the focusing and debluring.
Share this on playraw you will get lots of feedback…don’t try for dramatic skies with filmic…use it to manage tone then use other tools…the new colorbalance rgb has a lot of tools to work on the sky also be sure to visit the master tab and use the picker to set your white fulcrum and you can further adjust shadows and highlights with internal masking…I think you should have what you need…
1 Like
OK, thank you I had thought it was here the place to share it.
Here is good too, you should expect only results achieved with filmic though.
It also appears you attached a jpeg and an XMP but no raw file 
That would be great: how to get best results from filmic only first, and then if needed I will try other modules like color balance RGB to expand highlights (may be curves, but I think curves will change color and affect hue in most cases).
For sure you can share here with your specific question but if people don’t read the post they may not see it…so playraw is scanned may many users…people share images just curious as to what others would do or with a specific question…sorry for any confusion. You would need to share the original raw. You have provided your xmp which is great. Others will share theirs with you. You just also need to add a creative license tag so that others will feel that it is okay to edit it…so just add this when you post images… Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0
1 Like
DSCF0262.RAF.xmp (14.2 KB)
Perhaps this is considered cheating, as I didn’t use only filmic, but I wanted to create a dramatic sky. Maybe a bit exaggerated 
DT 3.6
1 Like
Don’t worry, it is OK for me.
Perhaps it would have been better to put it in the thread I opened using play_raw (as this is more for filmic) after been adviced of opening it.
Help to improve skies using filmic and other modules. - Software / darktable - discuss.pixls.us
This kind of edit is what I was looking for: do as much as you can with filmic, but then use other module to expand hightlights and give light to the darks.
Using color balance and parametric masks does not give many times the effect I want: you cannot push light as much and it can create halos.