Can you show me where I said that sorry it seems like a quote. THe only time I think I used the word simple was to say that some users might want a default that is as simple as a setting on their camera.
I’m not a reductionist editor. If you see right from the start a result that comes from a number of edits applied to the image preview and you don’t like it where do you start. So if I have a preset and it does something weird to the image where do I start …abandon the default, try to guess is it too much contrast or too much saturation or is there a setting in the color lookup table driving this so do I start enabling and disabling modules. If I add to the image I know what I added and with what intent and I can then correct or interpret changes and edits more accurately. I am sure that any default you could come up with even for you will only work a certain percentage of the time and then you will go to ground zero.
It’s not a quote. You describe fighting the default to get to where you want. This implies some complexity because you wouln’t start a fight with someone not putting up a fight would you? If the default is simple and transparent a click or two should be enough to pair it down. A couple of clicks hardly qualifies as a fight.
Again this means that the preset shouldn’t do anything wierd and should be a small amount of “modules” or settings.
If you have such a solution, the magic default that one or two clicks solves all then you should really sell your idea it would be much more fruitful than this discussion.
EDIT and you are right on that front the blending light and color is very very complex to control
That’s what I don’t understand about all this discussion: RT gives a good result from start, dt also does it, I guess other software do it also (one that doesn’t is Photoflow, it starts from demosaiced raw)
So, what is the problem?
By good I mean something close to the ooc jpeg.
I don’t think “good” necessarily has to be either like the JPEG or developed over months of research.
Filmulator’s defaults are basically a complete accident: the parameters for the film simulation are our original guesses at what might work, before we had even finished implementation or seen the result.
All it took was for me to pronounce it “good” and that was that.
I want to have a file that offers me as much data as possible, so that I have enough room for further processing according to my own perception. Correct for me only means that I take care when photographing not to overexpose or underexpose the photo. That is the prerequisite - to have this data.
And this perception of what the photo should look like in the end, is based on what I felt was important/beautiful/sightly when I was taking the photo. Logically, because otherwise I would not have photographed the corresponding scene if it had not offered anything interesting for me.
The challenge is then, as far as my skills and abilities allow me, to try to recreate what I saw in the moment when I took the photo. To do this, I do not need any artificial crutches from the outside to distract me, but I have to see how I can best master my tools to accomplish the task.
If I were happy with what the camera offers me with its presets, I would have no need to bother with raw files.
My camera offers me a lot of presets that I could deal with and use accordingly, but why should I bother with their limitations when I have the possibility to take matters into my own hands with all corresponding creative possibilities.
But you already have that as an OOC jpeg. Why the detour via darktable or any other raw file developer?
You’ll find a lot of comments on this site saying that defaults shouldn’t be good enough for printing/viewing. Just look above.
There is, it seems, a reluctance to admit to or commit to a “good default”. Somehow it’s fine if presented as the objective consequence of mathematical processes despite the choice of mathematical processes and it’s settings being subjective. I think there’s enough knowledge and skill here to push this forward to include new clever tools.
Ok. But you’re not considering comments from newbies who don’t know that two tweeks is enough to bring their ettr image acceptable (I’m thinking of dt, increasing exposure + adjusting white in filmic), because if the image is an LDR correctly exposed there’s nothing to do.
The last assembly of post-thesis in another thread I saw recently was clearly from such a beginner.
So can the exposure + adjusting white be the default?
This is the premise of a raw file.
There are, as has been mentioned multiple times and should be known to frequent posters, lots and lots of reasons to develop from raw instead of using sooc jpeg even if the “look” of the jpeg is good enough.
For an ettr image?
How can an algo determine what you had in mind when you took the image, that is, what you elect as middle grey?
Even if it was possible, then why not addressing objectively this issue, instead of starting a broad and general discussion?
Because if it’s a well exposed image (mean, ldr), then you’re ready.
Does ACR automatically fix an hdr /ettr image??
If you want this in darktabke, then you make a preset/style with the approximate exposure setting for your images. Right now the default is 0.5 ev, which is an approximation for everyone. You’re meant to change this parameter. If you do that, you should be more or less good to go.
A major conflict occurs when those familiar with LR believe that their RAW LR file is the same as a dt RAW file and should look the same when initially displayed. The differences are monumental but not understood. I feel this is really a root problem for many users.
Not automatically. It recognizes HDR images and switches over to HDR mode. The good thing about the GUI is that the controls are almost the same as the LDR mode, with several HDR specific ones. That was a decade or so ago, so things may have improved since.
Sorry I missed that premise. i find it hard to believe that someone exposes ettr and is surprised to see the chosen exposure when opening the file. If you ettr you know that you have to adjust exposure in post.
Nope, none because there is none. PP isn’t only/always about changing the “look” there are a myriad other more subtle things to do.
Yes, people coming from other software or sooc jpegs will have to get used to not quite achieving identical results. I think that’s a slightly different question. I wonder if people who switch from LR to Capture one expect identical results. Anyone know if this is a frequent issue? Isn’t it more about people preferring aspects of other software rather than expecting identity. I remember quite a few threads comparing colours, noise etc. and trying to get as good results but not really all over identical results.
Is filmic inherently more difficult to set defaults with? Not considering second guessing ettr or doing any other mind reading? I have no idea, it’s an honest question.
Nope, if you want to set a preset, do it. I find that simply turning on filmic and adjusting my exposure is enough for what I consider “decent” most of the time.
@paperdigits So then the image I get when opening a file with the default dt settings are the result of an active choice to present the file like that, rather than the result of the technical difficulty of automatically determining the parameters of the image?
I fell into that same trap when I started out with darktable coming from Bibble/Aftershot, the tool I worked with for 15 years. After “resetting” my brain and just using dt as it is my pictures look as good as ever but created completely different. Not fully fluent, but good enough to work through a ton of images without major problems.
Quality is there, well, probably even better, and now I just have to improve on my workflow to speed things up. Every software has their specialties that make some things easier and others harder.
Having used a tool for a long time and edited lots of images you are just used to the way things are. Comparing that muscle memory to a new tool you have no knowledge about will screw with your objectivity.
