Ok, then I understand it.
By the way, as the setting of the masking tab is so important for the module’s functioning, I’ve always wondered why it comes last (to the right) in the module’s layout, rather than first.
1 Like
@EspE1 I am less concerned about where it is and more concerned how I have to jump back and forth between the advance tab and the masking tab to find the best position of the sliders.
@Terry, I’m just curious as to where is the visual of the masked area which is visible in the masking tab. Are their not times when adjustments are needed here?
@stuntflyer there are more options in the masking tab, but I want to visualize the histogram placement when moving the mask exposure and contrast sliders. Most of the other options in the mask tab I don’t need to touch.
I notice mention of the “best” positions for the slider. But no indication of what those “best” positions are…
If you mean “settings so that the mask covers the full histogram”, that could be automated, as the luminance range of the image is known (and then it’s just a matter of setting two variables from two equations). No need to enlarge the current module layout to allow for a readable histogram in the mask tab. If your “best” positions are something else, please specify.
That said, I rarely need the mask to be set that precise, in >> 95% of uses, a visual adjustment, so that the mask doesn’t clip in the areas I need to adjust, is enough. For that, I don’t need a histogram, or even the bar that is provided…
You have my vote.
Well, everyone else seems to be pushing for a change. I for one, am satisfied the way it it.
re: Making the histogram cover the entire range - sometimes, you want to do as Boris suggested some time ago, and use multiple instances with different ranges.
Looks like AP just made some changes to the tone eq…I will have to go and see what that looks like to see what direction he went with Ansel…
As an aside…
Looks like he actually made some changes in filmic with some tweaks to the defaults and some to the highlight reconstruction and might have introduced multiple instances of Highlight reconstruction which I think some others had expressed interest about for DT at some point…
EDIT: this is how he now displays it…
2 Likes
@rvietor thanks for your reply. It would be great to have an automatic calculation of the settings so that the mask covers the full histogram. This is often what I want. This is often what I regard as the best position, but sometimes I am more interested in a specific region such as highlights or shadows, so if the mask doesn’t clip in the areas I need to adjust, that is enough. I also like and use the simple sliders to tweak the final look. I know some people never use these sliders.
@priort it looks like AP may have made some good improvements to both the tone equalizer and filmic. I trust the developers will look at these and decide if they should find their way into DT.
I am really please that I tried using the QA tab that @123sg suggested. That is a good work around for me.
What about if the magic wand could do 3 states: “full range”, “shadows” and “highlights”?
I’m a little late to the game on this thread, but the way I work around switching from one tab to the next is by assigning keyboard shortcuts to adjust exposure compensation and mask contrast compensation.
I use the left/right arrow keys for one and the up/down for the other so I can fit the histogram as I see it in real time.
I’ve also had luck by just relying on the display exposure mask, avoiding clipped highlights or shadows in the mask and adjusting for the best contrast.
I also vote for keeping the simple tab. It’s helped a lot when the curve won’t cooperate.
Sounds good.
I agree it should be kept. For those of us who use it, it can be important. Having it in its own tab like it currently is is fine by me.
For the sake of good order:
When I look into this now, I find that my 5.0 installed from scratch includes default the two sliders for mask exposure compensation and mask contrast compensation together with the histogram in the TE instance in QAP – at least for the filmic workflow.
I haven’t seen that… could you provide a screen shot?
1 Like
I put the bug in your ear but @123sg Steven for sure showed you the way 
I would vote for an option to automatically make the graph full width. I’d like it to be selectable as default.
I absolutely need the “simple” sliders (to me the graph is actually the simple interface) for things like a steep fall off that the curvy-graph would not permit, or for shifting the peak point of a curve.
Moving the simple sliders justs or setting the nodes in the graph or hover over the image and scroll results in the same effect.
1 Like
Like @MStraeten says, I don’t think the simple sliders make any real difference to the effect. They give you the illusion of having more fine control, but they affect the curve in the same way as the graph curve does. You can tell by watching the graph curve after moving the sliders: if you make a biggish change to just one slider, the whole curve reacts to it.
The sliders do make it a bit easier to make incremental adjustments, but I’m not sure they enable what we sometimes want, which is to only affect one or two “zones.”
Making steep adjustments between nodes is something I struggle with actually, and I’m not sure the module really allows for it. It likes smooth transitions by design. The answer is to try and spread the tonal range between all the nodes so that you don’t need to do steep transitions. But spreading the exact area you want to adjust over multiple nodes is in itself a challenge sometimes. I certainly haven’t mastered it yet, despite lots of attempts over the years. I’m still not sure if it’s just a challenging module or whether my skills at it need to be improved.
1 Like
