As I understand it, care has been taken not to change the sliders, only their names. I think this is an excellent idea to make both sets of labels available.
Maybe not as two tabs. Maybe as a config item, or maybe as a “properties” selection in the module?
Even though I’ve read bout the darkroom process that that this emulates, I’ve never understood it. But that never stopped me using it.
Hi all,
I would still vote for a user / comprehensibility oriented set of wording, even if we know that this will have quite some impact on existing video footage et al.
But well, software develops and so does the GUI. Otherwise it would block any improvement or further development, if one must always take into account anything that might be affected in the wild (besides everything that is “internal”, like documentation, etc. which of course should be aligned).
So how about mentioning the related math-/algorithm oriented names in the tooltip while introducing a more photographer related and better understandable wording in the GUI? I think this may suit both groups, then.
Have a nice day, Lars.
I thought that was the already-reached forum consensus, with the next step being for dt team to decide?
I understood it in the way, that it was decided to keep the GUI as is and to add “photographer / user oriented” text to the tool-tip, but perhaps I got it wrongly, as this topic is a little spread and threads have grown quite long 
so I will be happy to be corrected here.
That is what I understand as well.
I am going to see what I can come up with as far as tooltips go.
It will be a challenge since they will be tooltips for controls with the existing names, but I think we will be able to make some sort of improvement.
Oh. Totally disappointing.
While it is disappointing to me as well, I understand the logic of the devs and maintainer. I think looking towards future modules, built from the ground up with better UIs is the silver-lining.
I think the comments here likely summarize the module experience for many users and for some likely even worse…
Unfortunately, if this is true or even substantially then I’m not sure that any name change no matter how “accurate” is going to help too much
There are some good test images here with features to try and sharpen or blur…I think the sharpening can be harder to do without artifacts…
There are gradients and gridlines and other elements on gray and white background and some other elements like ramps…
The images I refer to are the two versions near the bottom.
So looking at elements there with intension try to apply sliders to to get your desired improvement and or reveal the impact of gradients and various wavelet radius/span combinations on the edges and see if it can control them…
As noted by @europlatus, even when you essentially know what the sliders do or are intended to do its not always easy to control the adjustment.
Extending that from a test image to a photo with a complex blend of elements adds even further difficulty.
Referring back to AP’s assertions for a possible way forward it seems like there is work looking into those sorts of things…
unfortunately they aren‘t evaluated as ‚and‘.
D&S is too technical (because it’s designed using a complex technical concept) and for it’s purpose it’s good and doesn’t need a rework ( at any price as it was suggested)
if you can use other tools for diffusion, sharpening or dehaze because they are more aligned with your experience then better use them instead of a module that uses a quite different approach. There‘re plenty of those modules available in darktable and none of them were deprecated in favor of D&S.
To be clear: no one needs D&S - if other tools gives proper results. It’s a different approach that might give better results if you spend the effort to understand the differences…
Fair enough, but then can you suggest better names? Apologies if you already have and I missed that. I am just not sure what names would be useful for this very technically challenging module. I would benefit from tooltips if they could guide me. I am forced to mainly use presets for this module. Some of the presets I have obtained from other users here in the PlayRaw category. One of them is for texture and I use it a lot when it is suitable. I never could have made this preset myself.
Absolutely not! Because I don’t understand the existing names.
But… I thought it had been done subject only to refinement.
I had come up with alternate names, but I closed the PR because I don’t think it is truly the best path forward.
I think for immediate improvement, yes different control names would help, but part of the problem with diffuse or sharpen is how it was designed. It was not designed to be a good UX, but to be as maximally good at what it does (pos. & Neg. diffusion). The module needs more than just name changes to be a great experience to use. It would need a complete overhaul. It would need to become a whole different module basically. That is the future in my opinion.
Also, the existing ecosystem for DorS is a large barrier to change as well. This is another reason why opting for a whole new module is a better idea to me.
Thank you very much for this explanation, as well as for the work you did in trying to find a way of improving the DorS experience without changing the underlying module.
