91–100 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe some of these developers are just, you know… busy.
It's the busiest developers who would be interested in receiving PRs. If they go unanswered for six months, it is a clear signal that there is something stopping else them from action.
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…
> ... 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.
Rawtherapee I think has a feature that tries to apply curves in order to match the built in jpeg preview.
Otherwise you might be better served by commercial software such as Lightroom or Capture One, as they work with camera manufacturers in order to match the in-camera processing.
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…
"Color space", by which I assume you mean input color profile aka the color matrix of the camera's sensor, has to be calibrated or reverse engineered by shooting standardized color targets under standard illuminants. DT does have this data and applies it automatically, but the calibration is provided by users and might not be ideal. You would probably get better results by doing your own calibration, but that is somewhat involved.
Picture control things like saturation etc that you select in camera are post processing steps that the camera applies to the raw in order to get a "developed" jpeg. They are proprietary to the camera maker and not published. Even if you can read settings like "saturation" and "portrait mode" from the metadata, you don't know which algorithm exactly that implies. Lightroom and other commercial software works with camera makers under NDA in order to reproduce the camera's processing. Could it be reverse engineered by open source software? Maybe, but the DT devs decided that they prefer to go in another direction.
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…
Not handling that at the software level and leaving it to the user means that you would have to do a repetitive and complex work for every single picture when other softwares give you a "neutral" basis (even though any attempt at neutrality is always limited. True neutrality could not display the image with RBG at all...) to work from based on calibrated color profiles for the cameras (some are better at giving you a good basis than others of course).
This would seem like a weird choice as anyways you have to do a bunch of conversion, so not using camera profile just means the conversion is less faithful.
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…
Do you have any link explaining this reasoning? It does seem weird to me because not handling camera specific color management seem contradictory to a good experience. Raw files are actually not in any way "neutral" or standard, they are pretty specific to the camera and brand depending on how they calibrated their censor and other considerations such as potential treatments etc. Not handling that at the software lev…
Sorry, not specific link, just stuff I picked up by following the pixls.us forum, where the DT and RT devs hang out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
- I've been shooting mirrorless, and consequently using EVFs, since the NEX 6 came out. When I take a photo, I have already seen it. I have a vague idea of what tweaks I want to make, so having to start from scratch just interrupts that. Of course, sometimes those tweaks will override basically every default setting, but that doesn't mean having them wasn't valuable
- I often shoot RAW not because I want to painstakingly develop each photo to perfection, but because I simply need more latitude to "fix things in post". Especially when shooting events in suboptimal lighting or when I need to raise the ISO to make sure a critical event gets captured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the busiest developers who would be interested in receiving PRs. If they go unanswered for six months, it is a clear signal that there is something stopping else them from action.
Do you think busy devs who also run open source projects tend to have plenty of time to set a high priority on FOSS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 b…
It doesn't have to be "faithful" and I agree it's not most people's "goal", but here's why I still want it and appreciate that Lightroom does it very well: - I've been shooting mirrorless, and consequently using EVFs, since the NEX 6 came out. When I take a photo, I have already seen it. I have a vague idea of what tweaks I want to make, so having to start from scratch just interrupts that. Of course, sometimes those…
Really glad there's advanced open-source tools like darktable and RawTherapee. I've switched back and forth between RawTherapee and darktable for a few years now. I prefer the UI and workflow or RT, but dt has better performance on my machine. And RT has this strange longstanding bug where the image is extremely blurry during editing, and only becomes clear after exporting. According to a github issue, a workaround i…
Really glad there's advanced open-source tools like darktable and RawTherapee. I've switched back and forth between RawTherapee and darktable for a few years now. I prefer the UI and workflow or RT, but dt has better performance on my machine. And RT has this strange longstanding bug where the image is extremely blurry during editing, and only becomes clear after exporting. According to a github issue, a workaround i…
I wish the effort is united between dt and rt (and maybe digiKam for management), then we'd have a Blender-level competitor against LightRoom maybe