I think I have tried all the ways around this, but am I right in thinking when I apply a mask to a module and then either save that modules setting from the history stack as a Style (or maybe from the module drop down menu as a preset) the mask element is not recorded. I can’t get it to be stored… but then DarkTable is so amazingly comprehensive I just wondered if I was missing something! 
It may depend on the kind of mask, and perhaps there’s a difference between presets and styles.
I have a preset for exposure that applies a correction of -1EV with a parametric mask for gray value (that preset dates from before filmic, where you needed that kind of tricks a lot more than with filmic and tone equaliser).
The mask is stored in the preset; without that, the preset wouldn’t be (as) useful.
Then again, do you want drawn masks stored? E.g. a skyline will be different for most other pictures where you want to use that style.
Yes that is a point, I was just playing and seeing if I could replicate how I used to do exactly that in Lightroom. So there I had a preset gradient mask for colour adjustment prior to monochrome conversion that saturated the blue colours quite a bit, added some contrast for dramatic clouds and so on. I was just trying to see how that could be a shortcut in DT but like you say it might depend upon mask type?
I know I can use Mask Manager and make a mask that is independent of the image, but again because DT has a mask in every module I would still need to go into each module and apply the effect. I’m not criticising DT as the more I use it the more I am blown away by the technical level and degree of customisation available, but this is one of those areas where Lightroom’s mask treatment was a lot easier to automate.
As an ex-developer it would seem to me that having a mask section for every module is repetitive and redundant functionality, and makes the module sections even more complicated and longer than they are without it. Having a stand alone mask manager however, that can have whatever modules (along with a specific preset) added to it, would seem far more logical?
But hey… I’m not complaining! I just downloaded the full DXO PhotoLab 6.0 (because I was hoping for a little less colour science to learn and a lot more AI and automation) and it barely took me 10 minutes to know I massively preferred DarkTable! Ok it takes ages to do some very common corrections using the scene referred work flow (mostly its the learning curve, I just don’t understand the colour based technical terms used), but I don’t have to ignore the simpler deprecated modules if I don’t want to - and just being able to choose from so much interface customisation is excellent.
I wonder if there are any DT devs out there who fancy making ‘skins’ for the less colour science minded and more photographic workflow savvy users out there? 
mask manager is a solution to make drawn masks usable in all modules so avoid the need to redefine a mask several times. Parametric masks depends on input or output values of a module - so their definition is bound to the module and can’t be generalised like drawn masks
So if the mask manager attaches the module (with all its settings) to the saved mask then that problem is solved surely? It doesn’t prevent individual masks being used for individual modules, they just wouldn’t be saved as a ‘preset mask’ and therefore wouldn’t be in the mask manager list.
why duplicate the information that needs to be present in the pixelpipe? The darktable pixelpipe is built via processing modules, not via masks that are processed
I don’t think what you just said actually made any sense, but then I’m not interested in pixel pipes - I am interested in usability though, features that make the software easier to use (a common complaint levelled at Darktable). Other software manages this a lot better than DT and I think the devs have forgotten that it’s actually photographers who use this software - it is amazingly sophisticated, but that complexity could be better managed, we don’t need to know this stuff, we just want tools to edit images.
so better stay with that other software - or just fork darktable and start implementing an alternative. If your solution is ways better then i’m pretty sure it will be merged 
This is FOSS and not a commercial product. The developers normally develop the software they want to use themselves and then freely share their work.
You know I find the atmosphere in here decidedly unfriendly… not my usually experience in groups like this I must say. So I’ll bid you adieu and yes, maybe Darktable isn’t for me then…
foss is about sharing, not claiming …
suggesting the developers forget about someone is quite offensive, so don’t be surprised on the reaction
@Timiambeing please understand that “lightroom does this better” without any actual suggestion on how to improve our own UI/UX is not helpful at all. We can’t be lightroom (and don’t want to be) so we can’t just drop lightroom paradigms of operation into our application and have it make sense.
Also we aren’t on the mad dash for new users, we have no profits. We do want people to use the software because we like it and we think it works well, but we are well aware of the alternatives and if one of those works for you, then you should use it.
1 Like
Thank you for your comments, I do understand. I think the problem was I came on here with a query, I praised Darktable and made sure it was known how much I liked it - but after the first useful comment I was treated as if I had suggested something ridiculous and totally stupid - there’s nothing wrong with mentioning how another software does the job, but that again was met with hostility.
I did notice this tone in reply to another post of mine, so I have received the message loud and clear. I’ll discuss Darktable elsewhere.
How long have you been using darktable?
And how long have you been using other raw editors?
Darktable has a different approach than some of the larger editors (larger in terms of user count). So if you are used to such an editor, darktable will indeed not be “intuitive” (read: not work as you have learned to expect). “Muscle memory” won’t work, and needs to be retrained.
That’s neither darktable’s fault, nor the fault of any other program…
And if you start claiming replies make no sense, and devs don’t consider photographers, I’m not surprised replies to that also get less friendly.
Good luck “elsewhere”
A limited solution for now in DT might be to create the style. The module and the settings will be transferred. Then apply that to an image…draw your gradient which might have needed to be adjusted anyway and then use selective copy and paste on further images that you would have applied the style to…this does transfer the mask… still not what I think you were asking but in reality pretty close unless your mask is more complicated but again if it is I can’t imagine it being too widely applicable anyway but maybe that is at least a bit faster…
Cool down everyone, DT has enormous power, and there is usually a way to do things.
Tim, It may not be exactly what you want but some potential solutions are discussed in this thread:
Read on past this point in the thread as I think you can create a kind of “template” image that has the gradient mask you want, and then copy in overwrite mode to all the images you want to process.
1 Like
I have to say this is a very friendly and supportive forum. We as users have to appreciate that all the great features of DT are developed by volunteers. Sometimes as a user i may see the opportunity to change something or add something but i need to convince a developer that it is worthwhile to spend their time doing these changes. Sometimes the developers push back because they don’t see value in the suggestion, but they are not being disrespectful to me. Again, i just want to say what a great job the developers have done and how helpful I find this forum.
Hi Tim, when i edit a series of images in DT and I want to apply modules and masks across multiple shots I don’t create a style or preset. What I do is with the first edited image select I use control shift c which brings up an option to copy module settings. I select the wanted modules and then I can paste using control v these modules for another image. Masks are included and masks can be tweaked, moved or deleted as required. This is super helpful at times. So DT does what you are asking inmy view. Good luck
We don’t have to praise the software every time we want to make a suggestion for improvement or offer some constructive criticism. That isn’t necessary. Nor does the praise buy you any leeway in your criticisms. I think we all enjoy the software and try to speak up because we want it to be better. But I think what is missing specifically here, and in many of these types of interactions, is a bit of humility and recognition that a few lines of text is not enough to make a complete feature. A few lines of text is an excellent jumping off point for a discussion that may lead to a feature, but much more is necessary. We should also expect some resistance in our request, because if it was obvious and unanimously a good idea, then it’d probably already be done.
We should also be aware that “lightroom does xyz” without some in depth analysis of why it behaves that way and why that behavior is a good fit into our application is something that people who have been around a while have heard a lot and, in and of itself, is not a convincing argument (and actually has the opposite effect).
I don’t mean to level this at you directly @Terry – rather you just provided a nice jumping off point to some more thoughts. 
1 Like
Thanks for your feedback. I have picked DT as my #1 editor and am aiways pleased to see the new improvements which i often hadn,t even thought about. I don’t want a LR clone.
1 Like