New Darktable user promoting in my industry

6 Likes

Exporting as .EXR, however, did not preserve metadata.

You can if you select all of the export options, per the release notes.

3 Likes

Yes, but it’s not actually an ideal solution either. EXR is not really well standardized/equipped for rich metadata exchange (they have their own “attributes” that cover a subset of what photographers are used to and a lot of code needs to be written to translate those back and forth from Exif/XMP), so darktable just embeds its Exif payload as a binary blob and XMP as a string. AFAIK, only GIMP is able to parse those back from EXRs. TIFF indeed makes better sense.

1 Like

Nope: free as in speech (‘free as in beer’ is freeware, not FOSS).

4 Likes

thx!! updated

Yes… there is a official metadata list but every camera manufacture uses thier own… the ARRI one is probably the most used standard.

Darktable is easy to pick up.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes: no way, its practically impossible for new users (or so I’ve been told).

2 Likes

It is possible, but takes a lot of time and efforts. Watching tutorials by Boris is a must.

The average photographer vs a VFX professional.

3 Likes

My target audience for the article would all-ready be familiar with other far more complex image software like Houdini/Maya/Nuke/Adobe Suite. and ‘s DT’s UI is quick to pick up if you know a dozen or so other apps. It’s not too crazy or unique, and has been well thought out…
The only thing I needed to google using it was where the icc profile folder is, and the description of the scripts.

8 Likes

Man I still remember my early days using darktable…

During my first contact with the software (circa late 2020), I had no idea that you can edit photos, I thought that it’s just a fancy photo library lmao… :rofl: :sob:
(I genuinely didn’t know…)

Later on when I actually started editing, it was like wow, there’s so many modules and stuff.

2 Likes

Great to see you promoting DT which I agree is an excellent program. However, were do you get your beer for free. I want to live there. I only get rainwater in my water tanks for free. :grin:

2 Likes

Could you please explain that to all the Lightroom users complaining darktable is “unintuitive” :rofl:

5 Likes

When working with software like Maya, Softimage XSI, Nuke, Houdini, or Blender, and with node-based systems, darktable’s interface doesn’t seem complicated at all. Even when learning the methodology of how to develop photos—what comes first and what comes next—the program makes logical sense. The only thing left is to understand which tools make the difference and how to use them effectively to maximize their potential.

Most people are resistant to change. The unknown, which pushes them out of their comfort zone, instills fear and insecurity. They’re skeptical about making shifts—if a program works for them, why would they switch to another? Unless the restrictions imposed by software vendors, payment models, and other limitations drive users to seek alternatives and force them to make the switch.

This is something we’re witnessing today with Blender, which was long seen as the “ugly duckling”—a free program nobody wanted to use because the industry was dominated by Autodesk’s Maya and other major software companies. But Blender didn’t stay stagnant. It grew thanks to its global community of users, who have steadily turned it into a real, viable alternative. Many Maya users have already switched to Blender, while others watch with envy. The same could one day happen with darktable, and it will be thanks entirely to its developers and users.

3 Likes

Raw editor snobbery is such a strange concept to me. Reams have been written on how the camera doesn’t matter, it’s the photographer. But with the editing program, it’s suddenly some vendor’s responsibility to hand-feed us babyfood?

I’ve used most of them. Many years of Darktable, a good year of Capture One, a year of Lightroom, a year of AfterShot, several others in smaller doses. My conclusion of that process is much like my conclusion about cameras: It’s the photographer who matters, not the tool.

Many photographers look for the most featureful, complicated cameras they can find, and upgrade at every opportunity. But then these same people can’t be bothered to figure out a new editing program. Some even sticking to Photoshop, which is about as complex as they come, for a piece of software.

Especially in this day and age, where overprocessed phone pictures are the norm, half a photo’s impact is crafted in editing. James Popsys is a brilliant example of that. We should obsess about our editing skills and tools just as much as we obsess about cameras and lenses. And yet the online discussions are filled with snobbery. It’s strange.

Could it be that many photographers fear the editing program? They’re so protective of their choices because of insecurity about them? I could see how an analog veteran could manage to figure out a modern camera, but be utterly bewildered by computer editing.

1 Like

I think it’s more that you get used to a certain interface and workflow. After a while, you know what to do and where each tool you use is without thinking about it, so editing feels easy.
When you change to a different interface, the “muscle memory” fails, so you have to think about how you have to do something, instead of only about what you have to do. That even happens if the interfaces or the underlying mechanisms are just a bit different (e.g. Word vs. LibreOffice). It will be worse when changing between a display-oriented program and a scene-oriented program with a completely different approach to e.g. layers…

The change from analog to digital didn’t change all that much as far as camera controls were concerned, especially not when you were using automatic modes.
Developing the resulting raw product required larger changes (no more chemicals to mix, for one :wink: )

3 Likes