Exporting as .EXR, however, did not preserve metadata.
You can if you select all of the export options, per the release notes.
Yes, but itâs not actually an ideal solution either. EXR is not really well standardized/equipped for rich metadata exchange (they have their own âattributesâ 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.
Nope: free as in speech (âfree as in beerâ is freeware, not FOSS).
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.
no way, its practically impossible for new users (or so Iâve been told).
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.
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 âs DTâs UI is quick to pick up if you know a dozen or so other apps. Itâs not too crazy or unique, and has been well thought outâŚ
The only thing I needed to google using it was where the icc profile folder is, and the description of the scripts.
Man I still remember my early days using darktableâŚ
During my first contact with the software (circa late 2020), I had no idea that you can edit photos, I thought that itâs just a fancy photo library lmao⌠
(I genuinely didnât knowâŚ)
Later on when I actually started editing, it was like wow, thereâs so many modules and stuff.
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. 
Could you please explain that to all the Lightroom users complaining darktable is âunintuitiveâ
When working with software like Maya, Softimage XSI, Nuke, Houdini, or Blender, and with node-based systems, darktableâs interface doesnât seem complicated at all. Even when learning the methodology of how to develop photosâwhat comes first and what comes nextâthe 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. Theyâre skeptical about making shiftsâif 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 weâre witnessing today with Blender, which was long seen as the âugly ducklingââa free program nobody wanted to use because the industry was dominated by Autodeskâs Maya and other major software companies. But Blender didnât 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.
Raw editor snobbery is such a strange concept to me. Reams have been written on how the camera doesnât matter, itâs the photographer. But with the editing program, itâs suddenly some vendorâs responsibility to hand-feed us babyfood?
Iâve 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: Itâs 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 canât 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 photoâs 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. Itâs strange.
Could it be that many photographers fear the editing program? Theyâre 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.
I think itâs 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 âmuscle memoryâ 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. layersâŚ
The change from analog to digital didnât 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 
)