Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Darktable 4.0

darktable.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Darktable 4.0

#61

Post by bb88 »

auxym wrote: post #53
shaggie76 wrote: post #51

About once a year I try DT but always bounce off of it pretty hard for one very simple reason: my Canon raw images in DT don't look anything like what they do in-camera. I did a studio shoot on Monday: clean strobe light, a tame white background, all settings manual (so no auto-lighting-optimizer), and fired up my raws in 4.0 on my calibrated monitor. I loaded the roll into Light Table and things look fine (because,…

I understand why this turns you off, but I wanted to note that what you want: some default magic settings that make the photo look like Canon's in camera processing, is an explicit non-goal for the DT devs. Don't get your hopes up. What you are looking at when entering the darkroom is an "undeveloped" raw. Darktable's philosophy is that developing this raw photo should be 100% the user's responsibility and that whate…

> ... is an explicit non-goal for the DT devs. Don't get your hopes up.

The older I get the less time I want to be in front of a computer. I would prefer my photography software to do the workflow I want it to do, not what someone else thinks I should do -- regardless of whether it's free or not.

Besides, the more I'm behind a camera in nature, the better I usually feel. The more I'm behind a screen, the worse.

Re: Darktable 4.0

#62

Post by mikae1 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #55
auxym wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand why this turns you off, but I wanted to note that what you want: some default magic settings that make the photo look like Canon's in camera processing, is an explicit non-goal for the DT devs. Don't get your hopes up. What you are looking at when entering the darkroom is an "undeveloped" raw. Darktable's philosophy is that developing this raw photo should be 100% the user's responsibility and that whate…

This has nothing to do with the "camera maker's JPEG engine." The RAW file actually contains the camera's settings at the time of shooting, in other software they can re-use those settings to generate something very similar to the embedded JPEG because they're both set up the same. Both Lightroom and Photo Lab do exactly this. If Darktable cannot support reading that information and importing it as a preset, that's f…

> This has nothing to do with the "camera maker's JPEG engine." The RAW file actually contains the camera's settings at the time of shooting, in other software they can re-use those settings to generate something very similar to the embedded JPEG because they're both set up the same.

You are right, but I'm very sorry to say that attempting to faithfully recreate the look of the manufacturers JPEGs will likely never be the goal of darktable (or any serious photographer for that matter). What happens when you buy a camera from a different brand? You will likely want to normalize the output between your cameras and not to have every other picture rendered with Canon's interpretation of the the scene and the rest with Nikon's.

Re: Darktable 4.0

#63

Post by mikae1 »

nuclx wrote: post #29

I gave Darktable a try (never used Lightroom), and as an amateur, it is still kind of hard for me to achieve something better than the "out of camera" JPGs when post-processing RAW photos from my rather old Canon DSLR camera. I don't want to do elaborate stuff like working with masks / applying filters to sections of the photo only. Only thing I usually do is increase saturation, and, rarely, brightness/aperture. Sat…

> I don't want to do elaborate stuff like working with masks / applying filters to sections of the photo only. Only thing I usually do is increase saturation, and, rarely, brightness/aperture.

You can't change the aperture after the image has been captured. I don't think you're the intended audience for darktable. Give https://filmulator.org/ a try!

Re: Darktable 4.0

#64

Post by mikae1 »

morsch wrote: post #38
Normille wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm also glad it exists but have never figured out how to use it on MacOS Same here. I just downloaded V4 to see if there was any improvement from last time I tried to use it * Open app, Select 'Add to Library' --> spinning beachball of doom delete the ~/.config/darktable directory, to give me a clean start... * Open app. App opens in a weird window the full width of my screen but only half the depth. I try to resiz…

It's Linux software. Support for other operating systems is an afterthought. You guys have to deal with Adobe, or use a less advanced alternative.

> It's Linux software. Support for other operating systems is an afterthought.

This is the correct answer. I actually switched to Linux from macOS partly to be able to run darktable in a more native setting.

Re: Darktable 4.0

#65

Post by bori5 »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #60
bori5 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For RAW editing DXO is great and runs native on Apple silicon. Recently bought ON1 and Affinity photos as well so there are other alternatives to Adobe, at least in the processing stage of RAW development.

Does DXO still bundle rootkits (PACE) with their software?

I’m sorry don’t even know what the question means in this context or what pace is.

Re: Darktable 4.0

#66

Post by bori5 »

CharlesW wrote: post #56
bori5 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For RAW editing DXO is great and runs native on Apple silicon. Recently bought ON1 and Affinity photos as well so there are other alternatives to Adobe, at least in the processing stage of RAW development.

MacOS supports RAW images as well. I’m wondering if DarkTable could/should leverage it. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212821

Yep. I use the spacebar a lot for that ; )

Re: Darktable 4.0

#68

Post by inferiorhuman »

bori5 wrote: post #65
inferiorhuman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does DXO still bundle rootkits (PACE) with their software?

I’m sorry don’t even know what the question means in this context or what pace is.

Pace Interlock is the virulent DRM that DxO chose to bundle with all their software – even the trial versions. It's been so long I don't remember the details, but it's far more intrusive than Adobe's license management stuff. Especially in the context of open source software suggesting DxO anything is in poor taste unless they've ditched Pace.

Here's a little list of the problems Pace can cause:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071009193327/http://www.paceap....

Re: Darktable 4.0

#69

Post by morsch »

pkd wrote: post #37

One of the contributors to the project had not very nice things to say about the changes in this version. Ranty, but worth listening: https://youtu.be/56e5Yc-IQ84

Oh and he forked the project. Does he still maintain Filmic, or has someone else taken over?

Re: Darktable 4.0

#70

Post by code_biologist »

Youden wrote: post #19
jacooper wrote: post #13

Let's see if this changed anything. But my previous experience with editing Sony RAWs on Rawtherappe and Darktable wasn't good. The color science is missed up in Darktable and in Raw therappe, I just couldn't get something decent out. I would be editing for an hour and end up with a weird looking image, while in lightroom I would be done in 10 minutes. People might say that I'm just used to lightroom but I'm not, I w…

I shoot Sony and use Darktable exclusively. I think your problem might be the base curve module and its default "Sony" preset, which looks like garbage. Try setting it to "neutral", it should look a lot better (presets are under the little arrow next to the "base curve" header). The base curve presets, if I understand correctly, aim to make the photo look similar to the out of camera JPEGs. In my opinion, they look l…

What do you mean by Filmic? Their website (filmicpro.com?) seems very focused on mobile phone cinematography stuff, not photos.
Post reply on HN