I donât know what my edit looks like when you open it in 3.8.1, so here are my settings for filmic rgb:
The big change in 3.9 is color science v6 in the options tab. But it doesnât hardly make any difference on this photo, so my settings on 3.8.1 and v5 would be exactly the same.
I think the biggest difference between our edits is contrast-based. Of course I canât compare my edit with any remembrance of the original scene, but I donât feel my tires are particularly dark. They also look dusty and dirty. For me, your edit looks pretty faded.
Apart from that, I see that you donât use color balance rgb, which I believe is a pretty essential module to work on your colors.
Also, I see that you have the misfortune of not having a noise profile for your cam. In that case, denoise (profiled) just kills all details of the photo and everything becomes muddy.
Yes, I like your edit. However, I donât do play raws as a competition. In my version I tried to get some more contrast in the background and the the tires, although others might have done a better job in this respect.
Well, I think there is something going wrong there. I compared your xml after using it and noticed that it had dropped from ~17 kb to ~9 - so some steps were discarded.
I think that is why I see your work darker than mine on my computer. The processing is broken by 3.8 unable to use 3.9 settings.
So I will have to compare the jpeg you exported with mine instead of working directly in dt, the xml being useless.
Rgrds,
More important than my impression is what you like. Iâm not really qualified to give specific advise, but you are already doing what would be my first tip: go and play in play raw. And then there are series of videos like Editing moments with darktable, but like you mentioned, in english.
Looks like it doesnât load the 3.9 XMP at all but opens the photo with your DT default settings. I just took a look at 3.8.1 and recognized this.
Here is my - hopefully more usefull - edit with 3.8.1.
Thatâs what I like this forum for, so many open source users . And a lot of usefull information to find hear, too. The threads are mostly in English though, but a good place to start learning.
I did a few editsâŠlooks pretty good right out of the gate. I just played around with filmic mostly to expt with contrast and added diffuse and sharpen not much in the way of modulesâŠ
They donât look that different but there are minor differencesâŠ
For my part, I left them apart on purpose as most of the change in the edit came from the different approach and settings that I used in filmicâŠI was just really experimenting with no real targeted strategy other than what was pleasing to the eyeâŠSo for sure they are not one comprehensive strategy and or edit but really just meant to show the different looks I got by tweaking filmicâŠThe one in my last post had some masking and sky replacement using the watermark module and lots of contrast everywhereâŠits an in your face edit again that came from just âplayingâ around rather than a crafted editing strategyâŠ
What I meant was that your four images captured each of the aspects, so if you combined the four, you would get the best result. Anyway, just thinking aloud.