My take on this subject… There are thousands and thousands of photographers that use software like LR and it’s perfect for them because what they want to do is:
Edit images quickly
Satisfy the customer
I’m talking about wedding, portrait and social media photographers.
Let’s face it: Learning to edit properly takes a lot of time and studying. I know because I’m not even half at where I’d like to be although I’ve been doing this for a while now. It can be frustrating at times, it can be hugely satisfying, too.
But people who don’t bother with photography at all which applies to most customers, they want that insta-look that is the hot shit right now because that’s what they (or their customers) see everywhere and interpret as a ‘professional’ look. So if you get a solution where you can just click on a preset, adjust some contrast, highlight, shadow sliders and it’s ‘good enough’, of course people will use this and of course there’s a market for this. I mean… look at those wedding edits with the desaturated brownish greens and all warm and earthy tones. Are they technically good edits? Not from my understanding but for bride and groom they look nice so it’s the go-to for many wedding photographers and that’s (plus time management) what counts if you want to make a living from this…
Bottom line: I do understand the demand for presets and LR to get quick ok-ish results. That said, you can create your own presets for RT and DT and I think that’s enough. I think the ‘target group’ (if there is such a thing) are people who want to put in the effort.
When I started shooting digital (JPEG & RAW), I was very frustrated, because I could not reproduce the “good look” of the ooc JPEGs in darktable. But I tried to learn and watched a lot of video tutorials (special thanks to @harry_durgin). After some time I compared my results again to the ooc JPEGs and found that in most case they were superior to the ooc results (at least in my opinion; but as an amateur that is all that counts for me ). Currently, I want to see the RAW as flat as possible, to “feel” what can be done with it. If I would be a better photographer, I would know in advance, what is possible with a shot I took, but for now, I still need to see the result as neutral as possible. So for me “good presets” are not necessary.
We are discussing here what the forum should do or not do. I would suggest, instead of discussing the right or wrong way, those who are interested in “good starting points” or ooc JPEG reproduction, should start a thread and work on the development of adequate presets. For a start, changes of the code base is not even necessary. FOSS allows you to make your own presets for the modules or apply custom LUTs. Therefore, just start and collect ideas and develop them.
To visualize the discussion a bit, here is an example from the time when I realized how the presets distort the view of the subject and above all strongly limit the possible interpretations.
To illustrate, here we have three versions of the same photo:
first is the basic curve (which is very close to Nikon’s “standard” preset)
middle one is raw file and
third one is final processing.
As you can see at a glance, the first version already looks like an acceptable photo. In any case it looks much better than raw file. If you analyze it exactly, it is because the base curve enhances the contrast, giving the scene a certain depth. If you also increase the color saturation, it would be an average photo.
However, what bothered me about it is that I didn’t see the scene that way when I was on location. I took the photo because I liked the strong contrast between the softly glowing orange-green colored surroundings (sky was covered with a thin layer of clouds, which made a diffuse illumination) and the woman with her white, bright jacket. She would have been immediately recognizable from miles away because she stands out so strongly in this environment.
And if you look at the photo with the base curve, she does not stand out at all! She is embedded in a sea of strong local contrast of trees, branches and stones, which is forced by this preset. If I now continued my processing under this premise, I would get a photo that might look acceptable but at the same time aesthetically empty. I would not have processed this photo according to my sensibilities but would have been guided by the preset’s interpretation. Worse, if I had only seen the photo as an OOC JPEG, I wouldn’t have thought of processing it otherwise!
I do not understand how you can deliberately handicap yourself?
Imagine if the famous painters had painted their works according to a template given to them, or sculptor who gets a prefabricated statue and then may only refine it!
Yes, today there are for children and hobby people coloring books that you can buy and post-paint, but that would be an indictment to call that painting.
I do not understand why photography should not be treated in the same way.
I totally get what you’re saying and I do agree to some point. But I think it’s a matter of how you use presets. Because they don’t have to limit you at all. You are still free to view the neutral image and if you know your presets you will know how to apply them. To stay with your analogies, think of the painter with a pre-mixed color palette that he just needs to adjust slightly. Or the sculptor who gets a stone block that is already the appropriate size. They are still free to do everything they envision.
For me the most important thing with presets is this: You need to know what they do and you need to know for what kind of scenes they work. Therefore you either use your own presets that you know in and out or you need a thorough explanation delivered with each preset (which I don’t know if it’s usually done with LR presets). That way you can even learn from them (shoutout to @stefan.chirila who unknowingly taught me a few things through his presets).
I use some presets for my family pictures I take with my phone because I’m not going to put in the time and effort to edit all of them thoroughly. And IMO they do look better than sooc afterwards.
I agree with that. But this is a completely different thing than some “good looking default” setting which is required here that darktable and other raw processing software should offer.
You are talking about different styles that you can develop yourself and apply as needed. But there is also the danger that you wear out it and your photos after a while of intensive use only look monotonous.
This can be seen very well on the Internet where everyone tries again and again to imitate the already beaten appearances. F.e. I can’t stand "Teal and Orange"anymore.
@s7habo your style is one of intense processing for a sort of fantasy look. Treating photography as a painting is one of many valid approaches. I would also add that most artists do and did just copy someone else and then slowly developed another way of painting from this “good default”. Its the normal process in art and and design. I have taught at university and its explicit.
What I dont quite understand is your argument that a conservative but OK looking image out if the box would somehow hamper your vision?
I understand the unwillingness of devs to spend enormous effort chasing the most amazing default. I don’t understand the argument that a theoretical great default is somehow harmful or counterproductive.
It probably works a bit like that. I’d argue that a lot of postprocessing I see would benefit from some anchoring many are floating very free indeed.
Perhaps this is the core of the matter. A difference between those who use pp as a canvas to artistically re-invent a scene and those who want to recognise what they saw* in the out if the box image. The many references to cinema and their processes is interesting in regards to that.
*note that seeing is cultural and what looks natural is influenced by other images as well as the real scene.
This is standard offer from “Nordsee”, a fish store chain in Germany. I buy it sometimes when I am on the road. I discovered something there once. I like the taste of the fish and regularly ask the salesman to give me a version without tartar sauce. I just wanted a little piece of lemon with it.
You can’t imagine how the wonderful flavor of the baked fish comes out! A few drops of fresh lemon juice still refines it without affecting the taste of the fish.
Normally you can’t have the fish baguette without tartar sauce without ordering it separately!
Because it is part of the recipe and customers like to eat it that way. Although the tartar sauce which tastes very sweet, drowns out the taste of the fish and brings extra calories that I don’t have to have.
And this tartar sauce does not taste bad, but it is always served with the fish and if it is used everywhere, just tastes boring.
As if the “Nordsee” people were afraid that their products will not taste and they play it safe by simply smearing tartar sauce everywhere.
The question is, why do people like it? Because they get it permanently so served. They just want a quick snack and don’t want to waste too much time choosing seasonings. And because the remoulade always tastes somehow, they don’t care and their taste has been shaped that way. They simply cannot imagine eating it with other spices.
And now, when I invite someone to my house for a fish dinner, they always ask if the tartar sauce is there. I can also offer other sauces, but this must not be missing.
I think the whole discussion is somewhat crazy. Personally i think that dt should be most flexible and should start developing an image in a neutral way. Nothing fancy, no inherent filtering/denoising/coloring … whatever. So nothing to achieve an ooc-jpeg like look at all but something that tells me most about the image data itself. Also i think that is roughly what the dt policy and concept of long-time developers has been for many years. And there are very good arguments to do so.
If this is something users dislike or don’t agree on, very well - no problem. And if some of us think the learning curce of dt is too flat and people get frustrated within a short time this maybe might be saddening me but for sure this will not make me into coding for dt for a fool-proof target.
If some of you think dt is bad for people starting to do raw-editing, that may be so. But why wink at the developers? If there is a genuine interest in support for “beginners” there are much better and more productive ways: just one example. Develop styles and presets on your own. Document what they do, how they work and for what situations they would be fine. After making sure everything is of good quality offer them to others!
I’ve tried to avoid this becoming a dt thread. I also don’t intend to influence devs. Im a RT user and setting flat in camera style with small contrast and saturation boost allows the auto match curve in rt to give me a great starting point. Im not arguing in self interest.
I just see arguments being made about defaults, sooc jpgs etc. that seem not fully thought through or articulated. This thread was intended as a place to discuss those things.
You repeat the idea that good defaults are for beginners. I don’t think thats true but would be interested to hear more about why you think so.
If most users do 5 things upon opening the file perhaps its worth setting that default or otherwise enabling that out of the box look.
The rest of the post was a bit advanced for me but I think you are making assumtions about why people prefer tartar sauce. I think those assumptions are wrong.
That may be. And you see where a very abstract discussion can lead.
So my suggestion:
If you are having trouble finding a good default starting preset in darktable for yourself, please give me/us a couple of raw files as examples of your photo work and I will be happy to try to help you create/find that preset. Maybe this attempt will be enlightening for the other users and even developers here.
Anything else is just tedious talk that we’ve already had here enough times.
Besides being a deathtrap to me due to allergies, it isn’t the tartar sauce that is disturbing: it is putting breaded fish in bread! I know it is for texture, colour and to keep it together but no thanks. It is like how people ask Canadians why our milk comes in a bag with bags of milk and then (sometimes double) bag the bag of bags of milk at the grocer.
I am getting to something, honest! The problem I have commercial products like ACR/PS/LR is that the defaults are already OOC presets decided by the company and camera manufacturer. (Edit for clarification: You have no choice but to edit on top of / in addition to these presets.) Although there is a certain amount of play around this using sliders and other controls, you have no control over what they have decided for you, hampering your vision. We don’t have this problem with our favourite FLOSS apps, so presets can be friendlier in their context.
Using the fish baguette analogy again. My mom tends to customize and transform the fast food or takeout item so much so that she might as well make her own food to taste with no more time and effort. Of course, if she were to make her own baguette, it may be inferior because she now has to contend with determining how to make it, buying the ingredients and not messing up by over or under cooking the fish, etc. Takeout is usually more consistent and safe (if the kitchen staff adheres to food safety guidelines).
Thanks for the generous offer but this was intended as a meta discussion. You’ve put forward some ideas as to why you want a flat starting point which was interesting to hear. Ideally we would then be able to more precisely define what kind of flat but it seems we might struggle to get there. If you can it would be great to try though.
Do you want it to be as “correct” as possible or just low contrast/saturation. If you rework things from memory and intent does it matter?
Nice! But, while this effect most likely exists in perception, we do not know how visually strong it is in the cases we are looking at/which are discussed here. It’s a postulate that they are SO strong that users don’t learn anything if they apply them. I disagree with that postulate.
Then comes the question: well, if it is a strong effect, isn’t that an argument for several strong ‘looks’ and not one ‘neutral’ one which we know can never be fully neutral? (The funfunfun questions of how should out-of-gamut colors or luminance-levels be neutrally displayed on a limited gamut/peak-luminance display come to mind)
This effect (of unknown strength in the cases we discuss here) could also be helpful to demonstrate to newbies in order to form their skillset.
Just shouting at newbies: ‘NO! good looking is a bad starting point, GET SOME SKILL!!!11’ (I paraphrase, I hope this is not too toxic) certainly cannot be the answer. If people continue to bring this discussion up, there needs to be a way of adressing that and not a forum-wide gag-order or devs who are so stressed by just bringing it up that every discussions turns into…what we’ve seen.
There are so many edge cases were there is no ‘correct’ but only a bit less worse than others.
Could you define one …after all this discussion I can’t understand this statement…what would this default be and who would define it other than the individual. We have determined that each software has its default look so the user should migrate to that software not try to ask someone to make their software look like another product…this is like the dog chasing his tail…
). Currently, I want to see the RAW as flat as possible, to “feel” what can be done with it. If I would be a better photographer, I would know in advance, what is possible with a shot I took, but for now, I still need to see the result as neutral as possible. So for me “good presets” are not necessary.
+ 
many are floating very free indeed.