Seems like it would be a 15 minute YouTube video to me, so not too long. The effort by @garrett seems very nice and helpful.
Yes, you’ll need to understand some new things, and yes you’ll need to learn a new application. But isn’t this true of every new piece of softare one picks up? The vagueness of this statement helps nobody.
Then why take the time to leave this very general and negative comment for someone who is trying to be helpful. That’s so deflating. Whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re correct.
You don’t have to ignore those tabs… You can completely get rid of them! The tabs are customizible. Then if you need a module not listed, just use the search
“Scorn and descension”? No. Each to their own opinion. Here is what I learned though …
You don’t like darktable.
You don’t like the article even though you don’t “have neither the time or inclination to leap the hurdles necessary to use darktable”. But evidently you have plenty of time to write about your opinion.
Evidently you’re a spokesperson for “many in the photographic community”.
I recommend people check out the initialworkflow script… combine this with a few strategic presets and you are good to go… You can basically set autoexposure auto set the filmic limits and set the tone eq mask and the color balance mask ready to be edited which many people don’t even bother but will help target the tonal edits…
This script can also be modified to include any of the suggestions provided above… but I think its really fantastic… and it has lots of options…
@garrett You could easily modify this to create a list of your key modules with a few key presets selectable from the drop down to run your workflow… or I find this really useful as it is…
Somewhere along the line I have missed Aurélien’s suggestion regarding this. In fact, it has always been my my understanding that color balance RGB’s contrast would somehow ‘break’ filmic’s settings. I would much appreciate any pointers regarding this.
As with many things, investing time to master something is often rewarding. DT is more complex than LR for sure (not that much, but sure it is), but, for me anyway, it provides much better results on many fronts and additional controls on what is really happening behind the curtain. The “photographic community” is not homogeneous : many will choose to invest additional time to learn a tool like DT in order to get the benefits that come with it. Others wont, and this is perfectly OK.
Well stated in the manual…you are correct that AP I believe had said not to use it for "global " contrast adjustments… use it more selectively… but if one can use the tool knowing how it behaves in a way that suits them then I guess it is fine…
From the manual…
" The contrast algorithm gives natural results that mimic the central part of the contrast curve of analog film. However, it will also increase the image’s dynamic range, which may void filmic settings in the pipe. For global contrast adjustments, you should normally use the tone equalizer module – the color balance RGB contrast slider is best used with masks, e.g. for selective corrections over the foreground or background."
Explained here at 45 min mark through to around 48 min…
Thank you so much for your input Todd, and for directing me to such a pertinent part of AP’s video.
AP says that color balance RGB’s contrast “is not recommended as a general correction”, which is how I remember it.
Aurélien does however describe the problem as coming from the tool shifting the white point, whereas the manual says it stems from increasing the dynamic range. Whilst I recognise that increasing the dynamic range will potentially shift the white point, for me, the distinction between the two descriptions has proven enlightening.
I typically photograph people illuminated by a window, or other single light source, and within darktable, I will usually aim to establish a fairly bright facial highlight, then aspire to tweak the image by adding contrast and grading the light as it falls off across the face.
What I hadn’t appreciated, was the degree to which my ‘tweaks’ were affecting the white point, which now explains lots of going around in circles!
I don’t think there is a difference.
If your color balance rgb pivots around some brightness level, it means values brighter than that will be made even brighter, values darker that that will be made even darker. That is increasing the dynamic range – so a pixel which was just below filmic’s white point (or just above the black point) will be shifted outside.
Ah, I thought using Color balance RGB’s contrast (and adjusting filmic when needed) was the recommended approach.
I wanted to share what I had and what worked well for me.
Perhaps we should swap it out for Filmic RGB’s contrast?
Also, someone on Mastodon said it might be better to swap out diffuse and sharpen for local contrast, even though that’s a legacy module. The problem with diffuse or sharpen here in quick settings is that it’s useless and is intensive (especially if you don’t have good opencl support). Local contrast provides the “clarity” slider Lightroom users are used to, and it’s not too bad if done at smaller amounts (or masked, but the quick UI doesn’t support that either). I sometimes also use it even with diffuse or sharpen, as it provides local contrast a bit differently and more cheaply (on resources). Although, I usually use a mask to control it.
I guess a “version 2” could have these changes? What do you all think?
It was never my intention to criticise your efforts. It was simply that I had never heard Aurélien say what you attributed to him.
As for filmic RGB’s contrast slider, I get the impression that Aurélien is not a particular fan of this either, even though he wrote the module. I once saw him describe it as “damage control”, which I wrote down at the time, but I cannot point you towards a reference.
I use local contrast liberally with masking and blend modes… I like the result. But as I often forgo filmic and sigmoid modules as I don’t need them I don’t have any worry about messing with filmic is usually not a problem. For many images to me there is no gain as you can often lose a lot of detail and then you just work to get it back. I find for the main edit I can use exposure, diffuse and sharpen, tone eq, color balance, local contrast and color calibration and often never need to use filmic… if things are blown out a bit I will then use it but even then I often can manage with a few tone eq instances…
Define “better”
I haven’t used filmic v7 yet, but I would encourage everyone to try out sigmoid and filmic to see which they prefer. I don’t think there’s an answer as to which is “better”. Filmic may give more vivid highlight colours, maybe even more accurate, but sigmoid creates a look that you might find much more pleasing (more filmic, ironically). And for newbies, it’s much more of a set-it-and-forget-it kind of module.
But thanks for writing this up. It’s always great when someone puts in the effort and time to help others out who may be having a hard time understanding the software.
I also arrived at a “exposure only” workflow although I highly prefer sigmoid which in my opinion gives better results and with a straight forward interface, too. My default is at 1.2.
My look includes local contrast, contrast equalizer, tone equalizer and highlight reconstruction with inpaint opposed. All kinds of masking in the tools are turned off.
The cameras are set to underexpose around one stop to get that non-digital look going that the analog camera sensors should be providing and we have been denied for so long.
