Tried to do something between what I would normally try and do and the JPEG you posted (in darktable). Probably went a little bit too far on the local contrast and contrast equalizer, but this look was easily achieved with the exposure, tone curve, color zones and lut3D modules.
I always try to experiment with it first, but I’ve had difficulty getting the results I want from the filmic rgb module. I find that the lut3D module in combination with the RawTherapee haldclut files is an extremely easy (although perhaps more destructive?) way to get that filmic roll-off in my images.
I’m not on a computer sufficient to test it, but the yellowish green and the violet sky may both be mitigate-able by dialing down the red multiplier in the white balance.
Edit: I downloaded your jpeg, inspected the histogram, and decided increasing the WB blue muiltiplier would be a better “one-stop-shopping” correction. So with an additional .3 of blue and a slight s-curve to increase contrast, here’s what I got (so, would this be a “PlayJPEG”? )
Hi,
since you like the camera jpg (and I agree, the colours are nice), I tried to match that in terms of tonalities. I did it by using an appropriate input profile (I used a dual-illuminant DCP profile made with dcamprof) and slightly tweaking the colours with a channel mixer, mostly to make the greens redder.
Here’s what I got (still not identical, but in the ballpark I think):
Regarding the handling of details, I find the camera jpeg way oversharpened, and frankly pretty bad at 1:1 view. However, the amount of sharpening depends a lot on the output medium, viewing distance, and so on, so maybe the camera is just optimized for different viewing conditions…
I took a whack at it with Filmulator. I found Filmulator’s colors to be perfectly fine by default… but it does tend to differ there from the more typical raw editors.
Interesting scrolling through the 27 posted images and wondering just how they appeared to each of you on your systems, with your eyes. I see ones I like, ones I don’t, ones I think look natural, etc… Vive la difference! At the risk of being accused of offering nothing of my own… here’s a quick DT 3.0.0 take.
I’m quite new to RawTherapee as well, but I come from years of forgetting a camera can even make jpegs.
Well, my little bit of advice, coming from what I could unexpectedly but gladly rediscover with the last camera I recently got (X100V): it’s OK to be OK with the OOC JPEG
The raw development should be, I think, mostly to get out of the camera something that the camera development is not giving you already, but that you alone can get.
The above magnified view of your camera JPEG (with your brightening) on the left, and RawTherapee with the bundled profile “Standard Film Curve” for your camera on the right (with no other adjustments at all), shows how the camera JPEG has already been surpassed in terms of detail.
I applied the Samyang lens profile plus vertical perspective correction. This will definitely introduce some softening off-centre, but for most other lenses this will not happen.
One last thought from me, then I’ll let someone else have a turn.
Trying to replicate camera JPEG results is the whole wrong way to go about raw file handling. This will be more obvious when the JPEG is well off from what you want. If you think a particular JPEG is highly satisfying, the job is basically done, yes? So surpassing it to any great degree is futile.
But in many other cases camera JPEG files fall short to various degrees, or are just a starting point for where you want to ‘go’ with making the picture, so raw will give a vastly better result in those cases.
The short answer is either 120 cd/m2 or 160 cd/m2, I don’t recall which. It is a recommended level for my graphics working environment, which I follow the best advice and keep relatively dim. I set it with a monitor calibration device.
The longer answer is that chosen monitor brightness depends not only on personal preference, but also on the general room brightness, any direct light shining on your monitor, and the brightness of the viewing frame (for example my view of this page on pixls has a bright background, too bright for ideal photo viewing). An introductory article: What is the ideal brightness of a photographer’s monitor? | BenQ Asia Pacific
Also, your brightened JPEG has significantly blown highlights in a large area of sky (see black area in image below). That is a bad sign.
It’s not my jpeg! I haven’t shared any files in this discussion. I’m just commenting. As I say, I do find your image a bit underexposed. My monitor is set to 160 cd/m2.
Sorry, I thought you were the OP. My comments stand, though, as general advice. The OP might be a relative newcomer to the topic of brightness, and has brightened his photo quite a lot. Mine might be a bit dim depending on taste and usage (such as viewing on a white-page website), but his brightening is clipping the image.
Thanks again - I have been super busy at work and have not had time to digest all comments. Pretty sure my jpeg was not that bright - but will go through, check all comments and learn.
)
