An example image that demonstrates this would help focus the discussion.
Well, may be this is not the place to discuss whether sigmoid is better for some cases than filmic or not.
If you are here is because you have liked sigmoid and want to give it a try.
I have said that probably the problem with filmic is in my own, not being proficient enough in using it.
Anyway if the OP wants me to try to upload some image with sigmoid and filmic, I can seek for some.
Its not only me who is having problems with higlights using filmic, I can provide a link to other spanish forum where many of us have tried to get a natural look and could not (with filmic)
The image is not mine, so I will just put the link to the topic where there is a link to download.
But perhaps it is better to open a separate thread with a similar images and see what we can get with filmic and what we can get with sigmoid, isn’t it?
Quitar el cielo morado - Darktable en general - darktable en español
If you think it would be of help, I can seek for my own example and create a thread for it.
It will take me a bit to seek for a good example and compare filmic and sigmoid (I have to upgrade sigmoid install too).
But it does not matter if it is due to my inexperience with filmic or sigmoid being really superior to some images.
The fact is that there is people that likes it and finds it useful to some kind of images and easier to use than filmic.
So if it can be added to the mainstream it would be great to have options, in the same way we have options for other tasks.
It has been argued that it can create confusion, but DT has a lot of confusing modules some of them obsolete, others repetitive… having options is great.
Just don’t activate it for all users or don’t put it in general scene referred modules collection, but in alternative modules or something like that.
Even if other modules work better with filmic (color calibration or other modern modules that were developed by Aurelien and are great) it is the user option to see if it does not one to use them or accepts the results obtained.
Sigmoid is adapted to the new scene workflow: converts from an unconstrained “linear” RGB scene referred space to the constrained non linear RGB screen output, son there is no reason to discriminate it, it adapts to the new path in DT.
The reason is just a matter of taste and jugding results and that is the work of the end user.
I am now in Darktable 3.8.
Sigmoid executable seems to be 3.6 (at least for windows).
But the link on github in @jandren place does not work.
Any chance of being upgraded soon?
I had it installed but unistalled when upgrading to 3.8.
I don’t remember where I get the executable for windows fro, I cannot find it anywhere now.
(I know, I could compile it myself, but no I can’t as I don’t know how and doing it for windows requires quite a lot tools I don’t have and do not master).
Looks like it has not been worked on in a year at least from the link in original post…so I wouldn’t hold my breath. Also I don’t think there has been any recent discussion about it being merged.
1 Like
IIRC this touches many aspects of dt infrastructure. Should there be one module housing all display-transforms or many modules? What qualifies or disqualifies a specific disp-trans? Should look-transforms and display-transforms be seperate (most likely yes) but linked in terms of place in the pipeline (also most likely yes, but how)?
I don’t think this is up to Jakob.
Addinng more info to @priort’s answer:
@TurboGit Sorry didn’t keep a close eye on this branch during the fall as I tried to hunt down a solution to merge elsewhere and then took a break for other things. I had preferred to not integrate it in filmic as filmic is making several assumptions about white and black points which aren’t needed in this module as it is defined for infinity. So it’s essentially not compatible with filmic.
Link: [WIP] sigmoid tone mapping module by jandren · Pull Request #7820 · darktable-org/darktable · GitHub
@ariznaf Anyway, there are works in parallel going on about recovering clipped highlights, check this thread: Guiding laplacians to restore clipped highlights - #70 by Juha_Lintula
(it starts with a Aurelien’s new method and Jens-Hanno presents another method that he was working at the same time).
Jens-Hanno’s PR: [WIP] Segmentation based highlights recovery for bayer sensors by jenshannoschwalm · Pull Request #10716 · darktable-org/darktable · GitHub
Aurelien’s PR: Highlights reconstruction : introduce new method by aurelienpierre · Pull Request #10711 · darktable-org/darktable · GitHub
1 Like
Why just one for display transform specifically?
We have lots for sharpening for example or to do BN conversions…
some people prefer one others prefer other module, even if it is technically superior.
Aurelien has recently provided the diffuse and sharpen module, with sharpening profiles, and we have equalizer from it too used for sharpening.
Don’t take me wrong.
I appreciate Aurelien’s work a lot, and apprecite filmic.
I like the aspect it provides to many photographs when important subject are midtones and the lights are not clipped.
I know it can be used to recover lights and even it has some thing to do with noise but could not get it to good work, my fault, I am sure.
Sigmoid does a good job (I don’t know if better or worse than filmic or in which cases it does it well or not) with a quite simple interface and controls.
I agree with @jandren that for the end user concentrating in one aspect of the photo at a time is much easier: do just one thing and do it well.
Even if there are collateral effects, may be easier to solve them later than fighting against all in one point.
I know there are technical reasons that Aurelien has explained and that many aspects are related, ando that is why he put many things in one place, as technically it is a superior solution.
But sometimes perfection and convenience don’t let you walk the same path.
I prefer to keep it simple and something that I can manage and understand to some extend.
I think one answer is that many of the modules are now designed to work together with assumptions or actions that take into account the properties of each. So its not a simple as just adding in another module that is not designed for that ecosystem. That might actually impair the performance of the other modules. If it was simply an equation implemented the same way as filmic I don’t think there would be an issue but from what @jandren explained it is not like this.
May be official modules work together best, but that is not the unique path or the unique criteria to take into account.
In order to keep modules working all modules should adjust to the current workflow, using floating point RGB, linear, nonbounded model for the editing modulles, and a final conversion to screen.
May be some modules are technically superior and work better with each other.
But a final conversion to screen with other curve won’t hurt or make the workflow invalid, as can be seen with the results given in this thread.
If everybody uses the same modules and the same tools every body is going to have the same look.
Having options (even if they are not of the taste of many) is not bad, as long as that option is consistent and provides good results.
With LR you have few options, you have to develope the photo in the way Adobe thinks it should be done.
That is why people need to do a preliminary work in LR and then go to PS (whre you have many options from many vendors and users) to get the look they want in their photos.
2 Likes
I find the 3.8 filmic much easier to use with its new default settings. Have you tried it?
2 Likes
Contrary to diffuse/sharpen for example, you apply the transform to display space once per rendering intent whereas diffuse/sharpen you can put it at different places in the pipe with multiple instances either in scene-referred space and/or display-referred (I think).
If you mean why one should be bundling display-transforms (plural) into one module: maintenance and backwards compatibility were the reasons if I recall, please someone correct me if I am wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree. I would exchange your curve with concept though, but I agree.
I also 100% agree with this but feel that this is a different argument. IMHO There is a difference between:
“I think Filmic isn’t nice to handle - Oh, now it’s better!”
and
“I want a display-transform that does yada-yada - Ah, Filmic was never designed to do this like that!”
1 Like
Yes it is, and I have tried. It keeps giving very good results in most of my photos.
But that is not the question.
It keeps being difficult (at least for me and I am not the only one) to have good results in highlights when you want to dramitize sky, for example.
There is an alternative that is easier to grasp and a programmer that has provided an alternative.
It would be great to be able to opt for one path or the other.
But if @jandren has abandoned the project there is no point in continue talking about integrating it in DT mainstream.
I understand the precautions main developers have about integrating other modules that have great impact.
May be there is a way to add the modules as external plugins (that would be great) and thus is the user who decides.
And if there is no easy plugin mechanism, alternative modules like this could be provided in a separate tab named alternatives or third party.
So it would be clear that that modules are not completly endorsed by the main developers and be the responsability of the author and the user that wants to try them.
It would be enough to test that that modules keep up to a minimum standard and do not break completlly the workflow.
It would be a way to attract new developers that would begin to develope alternative modules that can be tried by people easily.
I was meaning alternate scene to display conversion algorithms, not meaning that you could use several modules of that class.
Of course you have to opt for filmic or sigmoid in a given photo.
Sorry for my english, I don not practice it enough to keep it fluent.
1 Like
Nono, my bad!
That would brake the saved status of an image if you do not have the plugin.
Yes that is true.
And that would need to be clear when you activate alternative modules or plugins, that in future releases that modules may not be present, they are the responsability of the independent developer.
If the plugin or module is not present, it should be simply not applied and be warn in someway (red zone for it for example) and it would be the user who has to decide how to substitute it.
May be it might be provided in advanced setting in DT, disabled by default and warned about the concerns when you enabled that function of plugins (or alternativ/3rd party modules).
Thus mainstream users won’t use it just people looking for that functions.
I don’t think its on filmic to do this. I use tone equalizer or tone curve.
1 Like
No, it is not a filmic task.
But filmic comprises lights a lot to get great results in midtones, that is my impression.
You have to fight a lot against it in order to counteract and I get not so natural results.
I will try with tone equalizer (I have used it several times but not with that specific objective).
My point is this is the focus and vision of the current development that is in a large part why it is as it is …not that it can’t be done or wouldn’t work in some way, similar to if you only use and tone curve and then choose not to use filmic…
I guess my point is the software is developed by a group of people to make the tools as they see fit and to suit their technical needs…I have said it before we benefit and get to tag along and or participate if we have the skill but there is no target audience or product path to a targeted consumer base. This is my point…not suggesting in any way if it should be there or if it is better or worse than what is currently available…just clearly there is not enough internal support or interest for that feature…at least for now
1 Like
OK, may be that is why jandren is not upgrading his module any more, or it seems he is not.
It sounds like not too much place for other contributions or alternatives.
This is really a huge issue. Hopefully it will get sorted but it’s been like that for a very long time now. There are some rather serious assumptions built into the new tools and workflow. Problem is that those assumptions are only valid for certain types of photography. It seems geared towards studio work in particular.
3 Likes