I understand that and I know several photographers who hate one part of the process or the other. It’s not uncommon for big-name fashion photographers to use techs for everything from shooting to editing with the photographer themselves acting more like an art director.
Part of it is efficiency side too. When it’s a business how fast you can crank out that signature looks is important. Particularly in the wedding and portrait space when there’s a never ending march of editing to do. When I did that work and second shot for a few bigger fish back in school that’s what killed a lot of editing drive for me. Sort of like how high school English here in the US beats Shakespeare into you until you never want to see it again.
Software is a tool to most people, the end result is what they’re after and I guess that’s OK. They don’t think about it in black box vs open source mentality it’s just a “I want to get to here.”
I suspect that photographers may play a smaller role on Adobe’s user base than we think.
And among those, I suspect professional, serious photographers play an even smaller role.
Given those assumptions, maybe weekend photographers or multimedia people with very tight schedules to deliver their products, nothing to do with art or fruition as we think of photography.
I was a new user about a year ago. The darktable learning curve was brutal, but I saw the results that could be achieved and persevered. I make no claim to proficiency, but the curve is less steep for me, now. And I am satisfied and happy with dt.
I know this isn’t all of the issue, but I think a large part of the desire for the straight out of camera look may have to do with frustration due to a sense of disconnection between the shooting and editing process. In the days of film there was either no connection there at all (point and shoot, wait and see how it “comes out”) or else the connection was maintained in the mind’s eye through the discipline of testing film, pre-visualization, purposeful metering/developing/printing, and perhaps, eventually, years of experience transforming all of that into intuition.
In the shift to digital photography the displaces involved in previsualization have, by and large, been pushed to extinction by the screen/EVF/histogram, and in the case of raw photos none of these tools have any meaningful connection to what you see when you look at the photos later. Even if you wanted to learn to use a spot meter, ignore how everything looks in the viewfinder, and previsualize the result you are after, almost all raw processing software presents you with almost no opportunity to relate what you did while shooting to what appears on screen. For instance, when shooting, all the variables you have at hand are in scene-referred logarithmic “stops", but when you load that raw file all you have are triplets of either linear floating point decimals or gamma encoded 8bit RGB with no way of knowing (speaking of the average advanced amateur rather than those with mathematic image processing backgrounds) how any part of the image relates to any other part in terms of EV/stops. The only point of connection you have to when you were shooting is that “it looked good on the screen when I shot it” and you have no idea how what you’re looking at relates to to that other than your subjective visual impression. So, basically, what I’m saying is that maybe it’s not really so much a desire to reproduce the exact look of the camera jpeg, but a manifestation of the desire to know how choices made while shooting are going to translate to processing.
Anyway, this isn’t meant to be knock on developers, but just some thoughts I’ve had regarding how the whole industry, from camera manufacturers to the software giants, is kind of hindering the potential growth of photographers in really understanding their craft by relating everything (metering, default raw profiles, RGB data display, histograms, etc) to 8 bit, gamma encoded display output data rather than a logarithmic (EV) photographic scale.
I have a specific take on that assertion, 'start with the linear demosaic…"
My reason for this is, if one is regarding an image to which a departure-from-linear tone curve has already been applied. the software they’re using will probably afford them the opportunity to apply another tone curve on top of that, which may further lift in some areas, but may reverse the already-applied lift in others. If the starting point is the linear demosaic, you only need one tone curve to get from what you don’t care for to that which you do…
Indeed, if the already-applied curve is exposed to you for further adjustment, I think your observation has merit. But I don’t think that’s the case in situations where something like a camera-specific tone curve is the baseline curve.
We all have our needs regarding workflow, and OOC JPEG is a significant player, ask most any sports photographer, or Reuters stringer (where the photogs are told to do such). Professionals I know working in these circumstances generally know the limits of control they can exercise in these workflows, and plan accordingly. Well and good, I’d say…
But, there’s another use case, and corresponding workflow. That is one where a carefully considered exposure is captured, and deliberation is warranted to produce the highest-quality rendition. Deadlines, if any, accommodate the effort. The software supporting such is mostly what we discuss here. There may be room for a FOSS OOC tool, but it just takes an interested developer and some time on their part. That’s how FOSS works. If that fundamental interest isn’t had by devs in the community, it just won’t happen, and badgering them to re-consider isn’t productive effort. Me, if I wanted to do OOC JPEG, I’d be wrestling with NIkon’s NX Studio right now…
There comes a fork in the road of every raw photographers journey. Either you look at all the sliders offered in your default raw convertor, and want to know what they do, why they are there, and what the alternatives are, and start your research journey down the rabbit hole of colour science, algorithms, etc… or you are happy to accept the given constraints, don’t want to think much about them, and just push the given sliders until an acceptable result is achieved. The problem is darktable caters more for the former, who are the minority, and lightroom, along with a lot of other commercial software, caters more for the latter, who are the majority, so the transition for those who jump ship is not smooth. It would be great if darktable catered perfectly for all, but so to would it be if lightroom did. Neither do, so you pick that which suits you best. I don’t really understand why people want an image to look like their jpeg. If so, why not just use that? Likewise, I don’t really understand why those who leave lightroom want darktable to work like lightroom. If so, why leave lightroom? The problem is not really that darktable doesn’t offer a one click solution - that much is up to the Devs - the problem is some new users have false expectation that it should. It is understandable, many things in life do - cars for example, all work much the same way in terms of user interaction, no matter what going on under the hood. Kitchen appliances, TVs, phones, ditto. But not software.
Well, LR isn’t a one/few-click solution either. It provides a multitude of sliders, tools and modules, plugins, side-menus and other elements. My brain explodes just thinking about them. The advantage and power of open source alternatives is that you can do as little or as much as you please. Come to think of it, the reason why people can complain and compare so much is because of this flexibility.
Isn’t this always the case? I have Creative Studio installed at work but bypass it and use RT so can’t quite remember.
Absolutely. In addition I think very few “professional serious photographers” do complicated edits beyond retouch and dodge/burn. Extremely few do more than pull a few sliders.
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.
). 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.