The thing is, the choice you speak of is not available to new users on initial exposure to an application. The choice of default rendering is made unilaterally by the developers, even if the user can override that with what they prefer later.
2 Likes
I dont think you were called a name and I think the devās of RT and DT would feel equally if not more insulted by your words [quote=āOK1, post:104, topic:25338ā]
but they do not yet competently address the fundamental task of a photo editing tool
[/quote]
2 Likes
You seem to have the same resistance to understanding not wanting a lot of processing by default. Iām sure your way is better to you, and by the same token, my way is better to me.
I thought you were trying to keep this editor agnostic?
If you canāt see that your posts come off as entitled, snarky, and closed minded, then I donāt know what to tell you.
No thanks.
Please do.
Sure, this is what I was referring to earlier, that unless you turn off the preservation, teh colours will look flat. Its not only with filmic, you get the same issues with base curve and tone curve, and rgb curvesā¦ its a common well know feature.
But turning of preservation could then lead to oversaturated colours.
So depending on how saturated your image is you may need to desaturate after filmic, like a push and pull back.
Push the colours up with filmic preservation turned off, then desaturate with any of the saturation modules. The question is why do we need to do this? Whatās the point in a tool, if it does not take care of this. I would have hoped that this yin and yang was avoidable.
I can expect that somone will read this and reply to reply to tell me they are happy to keep doing it this way, and I should find some other tools, that work the way I wantā¦ Of course we all have a choice.
That is on one level true but its a nuance. By choice I meant, they have the choice of determining if they like it (the default look) and then on how much time and effort to put in to that to further process the image despite where it starts. Are the results/rewards worth the effort. Again I think that is a highly personal selection.
You canāt choose to like something on first impression though. Either you do, or you donāt.
If you donāt like the default rendering, the only choice is between putting in an unknown amount of effort to achieve the desired result, or giving up and trying something else.
And thatās a very user-hostile choice.
1 Like
This really is the true use of filmic. The fact is that many features have been added to it to try and appease users that donāt want to use it in that manner or want to use it as a scene-referred substitute for the base curve with perfect contrast and saturation is part of the problem.
Delete choose and subst find it pleasingā¦
I like the total flexibility that dt provides.
I want to process a RAW image not a half-baked pseudo something.
I have a number of presets that automatically provides an initial look and style that is personal to my photography and from which simple steps allows me to create my final outcome.
Donāt mess with it ā¦ please
2 Likes
Really no danger of that
1 Like
Iām not sure how that substitution works.
Youāre saying people can control whether they like something, a notion I find puzzling.
No I am saying that you canāt control what they will like find pleasing or choose. they will migrate after trial and error. Some will try every program ever made and some will take another path. You can only put forth your best efforts to achieve the task and then share that and people will evaluate it and decide where to go from thereā¦
It seems only dt users are against good enough defaults as a concept.
The settings above dont make the processing āmoreā compared to defaults but it makes the images good enough for viewing and printing. From a quick look they are rather good. The defaults look terrible.
The info about over saturation and the process to recover is unfortunate. Is that the reason for the default look or does someone prefer power norm midtone saturation etc?
The problem with a good starting point is that itās in the eye of the user. Every user will have a different idea of a good starting point based on the situation and desired outcome.
When I have to get images out quick, then I would like something close to finished as a starting point. When I want to be artistic, then I want something pretty raw to start with.
Then only way devs could satisfy everyone is to create a preset (or 2 or 3) for everyone, so the software ships with 30 billion presets. The other choice is to provide tools that the user can configure so that they can have the starting point that suits thier situation and desired outcome.
5 Likes
For someone who has set up personal presets the defaults are irrelevant. I cant imagine how you can think a different out if the box image will impact your flexibility.
It makes no sense.
There is some strange conflation that good enough defaults would limit the software and turn your raws into jpegs. It means nothing of the kind.
3 Likes
Hope I can clarify and remain on the topic of the thread.
The opinions expressed are not about any specific modules in darktable(such as base curve or filmic or any other), or any other open source tools, its about the overall functionality in providing a ready made result, as a starting off point.
In my opinion, there is a gap in the approach of the two major well known open source photo editors that support import of Raw files - fully described in this and other threads. The two major open source photo editors darktable and RawTherapee, do not yet deliver a similar starting point to many other photo processing tools, against which we would compare them. And we must compare them, so we can choose.
Having used them, both, I can assuredly conclude that in this regard they do not compare with others, in this aspect, and discovering Filmulator - an open source app, points the way. Shows us that it is possible.
How this is achieved in detail, is somewhat secondary, whatās important is that these apps or any others which claim to be raw photo processing apps, deliver on this basic requirement, like Filmulator has done. I find this encouraging to discover an open source app that fulfils this basic need and does so pretty well.
The beauty of open source is that the work has been done already - in Filmulator, and it can be reused in Darktable and RawTherapee - this is supposed to be the beauty of open source. If we can facilitate that, then there would be no need for this thread.
I am confident all it takes is for the developers of the various apps to see through their silos, and work together to provide this already available capability, across all their apps.
Its not going to happen overnight. I get that, but we can collectively make a case for such a harmonious collaboration between the various apps, and their developers.
It does not take away from any of the existing functionality in dt or rt, it will only add to these other apps. So rather than resistance this potential needs an embrace and acceptance.
A nice car goes by or an attractive lady and without thinking I look. I find the visual representation pleasingā¦not a choice more of a reaction. I think that is what a lot of software goes for ie tapping in to that reaction.
If I reuse an example I mentioned on another thread, many of todayās cars do not force you to choose between a manual or an automatic gear. They give you both modes, you choose.
If you want to be 100% in charge, shift to fully manual mode. Otherwise, enjoy the defaults, take it easy and the car changes gear for you.
I think we can have both in modern software. Cāmon our starting point in photography the camera - has been like that for well over 30 years - at least the expensive ones, you choose - fully manual, aperture priority, etc, etc or like I did for over a decade before I started to really get interested in photography - go fully automatic.
Our digital cameras already give us choice, should not our software follow suit???
It makes as much sense as what you implyā¦just two different sides of the same coinā¦start flat and work up start processed and tweakā¦