Totally agree. That’s why I wanted to see how DT guys process overexposed images, since I moved to DT due to speed reasons.
I still use RT for what is needed and I consider it superior to DT in RAW engine (color noise removal, highlights, capture sharpness, 2nd monitor usage for film strips etc.), but speed/responsiveness is really lacking (also lacks that very useful blend&fade feature for each module DT has).
However, what guys here showed me, future DT 3.2 will see big improvements in highlight reconstructions. Can’t wait to try it!
That’s funny, I find completely the opposite, RawTherapee and ART both run really speedily on my computer, but Darktable is very slow. ART seems to have the best of all worlds to me…
Well, new DT uses OpenGL a lot, so it should be faster than RT by default.
Still, what I was comparing the most were the files in file manager (lighttable). Switching back and forth, zooming in, previews, developing and going back to lighttable is super fast in DT. Unlike RT where the more files you want to develop the slower and slower the program gets.
Just because it’s not visible doesn’t man it doesn’t exist, especially in RAW. This image is pure example what skillful editors managed to extract out of badly exposed photo.
The results are different so it is difficult to deduce what the sky really looked like. I don’t know if it matters.
What I asked was what kind of shooting instructions would be found so that the results after image processing would be closer to each other.
as long not each channel is clipped, there’s stuff to use to reconstruct something - at least variances of luminance. In darktable you can use highlight reconstruction with mode ‚reconstruct in lch‘ for this (sometimes ‚reconstruct in color‘ can give pleasing results too)
