With Agx 5.1.0+1108~gc74a95ef9b
20250615_182423_AZ6_3396.NEF.xmp (8,3 KB)
Greetings!
1 Like
Use duplicates and add the version variable name to your overlay…
1 Like
5 Likes
I’m enjoying seeing how others are utilizing AgX. Thanks for sharing your photo. My attempt.
2025-04-28_182423_AZ6_3396.NEF.xmp (15.3 KB)
1 Like
6 Likes
4 Likes
I haven’t used AgX, yet, but I hope it’s ok to post my version that uses FilmicRGB.
2025-04-28_182423_AZ6_3396.NEF.xmp (12.9 KB)
1 Like
With darktable, I think it’s pretty much possible to replicate looks across all tone mappers, so for me it’s rarely a case of which resulting image I like more. It’s more to do with which module I prefer to use from a usability perspective and/or understanding of how it works.
For all the submissions in this thread, it’s clear that AgX can match the look that you can achieve with Filmic. So, it will come down to which module you prefer to use. For me, AgX is a no brainer compared to Filmic, because it just suits the way my brain works better. I’ve never been a fan of the curve controls in Filmic nor the UI in general, although I have appreciated that it offers more control than Sigmoid. Sigmoid is much easier to use but offers little in the way of control… Enter AgX which, in my opinion, is a great balance between the two: less fiddly than Filmic yet offering more control than Sigmoid.
Sorry there’s no Play Raw submission in this post, but @Popanz and @s7habo have already gone in the direction I would go. I might have a play myself later after work…
In the description is still my own description, but if I am downloading here, I just rename the xpm file. So this trick does not fully work for that use cases. Anyhow, thanks for the heads up
My idea was to add the name of the creator or similar to the description. This is an additional manual step after loading the xpm to a duplicate. But actually, I like Todd’s suggestion to use the version name and include it in the overlay even better. But without some manual input, there is no way, I guess.
yeah understand. I am at the similar point.
For input the description, I never fiddled with that, so even need to play. I already have to rename the xmp-files so I can know which is which. The dream case (not realistic, i totally understand) would be to get that from there.
Anyhow it does not happen that often and now I used version number (that was there in the past already IIRC) and in addition color-codes
All, I have long wished DT could output a “custom” XMP at the same time as it writes the main output file, e.g. jpeg. For me this custom XMP would simply have the same name as the jpeg, which I try to name usefully in any case. This would save me having to do the XMP manually (though it’s not exactly hard).
BTW there is scope to add data to the output file name already. For example I just set it to
$(FILE_FOLDER)/$(FILE_NAME)-$(EXIF.ISO)-$(CREATOR)--Bld1150-V5-sRGB
and got
20240303-1244-8321-160-Ulrich Mueller–Bld1150-V5-sRGB.jpg
which is correct. The playraw name ends 8321, 160 is the ISO, and the creator is indeed Ulrich M.
So if I now had an XMP with the same name, that would be great. DT would continue to output the usual XMP of course.
Not everyone would want this “custom XMP” feature so it would need to be an option somehow.
Please like this post if you would like to see a “custom XMP” output in DT.
I think we should not clutter this thread
1 Like
I wonder why you would need it, as the output jpeg image typically contains the entire xmp data unless you switched this off. You can even load a jpeg instead of xmp to import its processing history. (I don’t want to doubt your use case, but many users are not aware of this feature. If you are aware and still require such a feature, I don’t have a solution.)
1 Like
1 Like
I would like the auto-named XMP because XMPs are my long-term record along with the finished jpeg and raw. I definitely don’t want to use the jpeg instead of the XMP. I think it’s a bad idea, kind of bizarre. Someone designed a compact image format and now we’re putting edit details in it, including masks (though not as bit maps thankfully).
It’s possible my XMPs could be used by some future software which didn’t support the jpeg route.
Putting the edit history in the jpeg could be a bit of a “data breach”. Suppose you’ve put a note of edit ideas using Watermark, as I sometimes do. E.g. “Mary looks a bit big in that dress, try Liquify to improve”. Later you output to jpeg, watermark is off, but that text is in the jpeg.