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

DaVinci Resolve – Photo

blackmagicdesign.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 307 posts

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#61

Post by Maxion »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #39
geerlingguy wrote: post #11

It's crazy that the RAW photo processing market is so underserved that a video editor can add on photo capabilities and it's immediately in the top 3 photo editors. I mean, they all process image data, so it had that going for it, but I'm still disappointed Apple gave up on Aperture, then nobody really innovated after that, in terms of library management and workflows.

Darktable does a lot of things that are conceptually similar to what DaVinci Resolve is likely doing here. One of the big things Darktable has been pushing for a few years is moving from the now deprecated display-referred workflow to a scene-referred one. The key idea is that you keep the image in something closer to the original scene as captured by the camera for as long as possible, instead of rendering it early…

Thanks for explaining this!

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#62

Post by t0bia_s »

arecsu wrote: post #31

This is incredible. There are soooo many features that Davinci already handles so damn well when it comes to color editing, that I only wish they existed in photo editors. To the point there were people posting videos on Youtube about hacky workflows to edit RAW photo files on Resolve and export each one as JPG files haha. Only Darktable seemed to push the technical capabilities of photo editing forward (AgX, paramet…

Photoshop can do anything that you mentioned for many years now.

I wish using Darkroom more, but it is terrible in defaults. It's one of those software that is developed by enthusiastic programmers but ignore actual needs of photographers. You don't need tons of demosaic algorithms but none reliable selection tool.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#63

Post by franga2000 »

raincole wrote: post #10

How do they actual make money? I've been using Resolve for years without paying for it (and without thinking about its business model too much). It seems that they sell quite expensive professional hardware so I assume the software users are just compensated by hardware users?

That and I imagine the overwhelming majority of professional users pay for the Studio license. It has a few quality of life things that are a total no-brainer when you use it to make money and/or are paying the person using it.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#64

Post by gyomu »

arecsu wrote: post #31

This is incredible. There are soooo many features that Davinci already handles so damn well when it comes to color editing, that I only wish they existed in photo editors. To the point there were people posting videos on Youtube about hacky workflows to edit RAW photo files on Resolve and export each one as JPG files haha. Only Darktable seemed to push the technical capabilities of photo editing forward (AgX, paramet…

The short of it is that there’s no money in photography, compared to videography.

Movies routinely have 8 or 9 digit budgets, with teams of hundreds of people who have to collaborate to make footage coming from dozens of different cameras look seamless and consistent. Meanwhile, $1M would be an insane budget for a photo shoot.

You can see this in the actual skills of people working in the field as well. Anyone working in video has a solid understanding of the technical underpinnings of their craft. On the other hand, it’s not uncommon for working photographers to not understand some really basic stuff about color science/data formats/etc.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#65

Post by hulk-konen »

tech234a wrote: post #54
InfinityByTen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a similar camp where I'm stucking to windows for that one software: lightroom classic (or CC as they call it). I'm happy to pay for a legitimate replacement that lets me go Linux native on a laptop. I'm fine even paying for the Adobe Cancellation tax from the money I save not buying Windows. On that note, is this supported on Linux?

Yes DaVinci Resolve is supported on Linux. Unfortunately the free version of DaVinci Resolve does not include H.264/H.265/AAC support on Linux due to codec licensing issues though you can transcode it elsewhere first.

I think this will be the year of the Linux then.

Native photo editor with decent ux was the missing piece.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#67

Post by qsi »

It is not entirely clear to me from reading TFA, but infer from its description and other comments here that Photo only works with RAW input files. Is this correct? Or can I use it on JPEGs?

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#68

Post by Jamesbeam »

I really like what BMD is doing. Disappointed with all the companies starting with A.

Having a proper choice that is not Adobe or Affinity is a win for every amateur like myself working with videos and photos.

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#69

Post by Arn_Thor »

jack1243star wrote: post #48
snowe2010 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What affinity betrayal?

The Affinity suite was made free to use, with optional paid "AI" features behind a subscription. The betrayal was probably against the promise of a perpetual license sustained not by subscription.

This was news to me. Very sad news indeed. I see now they were bought by Canva. That explains it...

Re: DaVinci Resolve – Photo

#70

Post by divan »

Cautiosly looking forward to it. I shoot with A9 III (global shutter camera that makes 120fps _RAW photos_), and dealing with thousands of photos per shoot is a challenge. I don't use Adobe products and still looking for a good stack for photos processing, but it's an uphill battle.

For culling there is nothing better than Photo Mechanic. Worth every penny. For editing, surprisingly, the best solution (performance/features wise) I found is Photomator (recently acquired by Apple). The trick though is not to import RAWs into Photomator, but import into Apple's photo library first (so it doesn't copy RAW files from SSD and doesn't not sync with gallery ofc), and Photomator picks it up natively.

Performance/features wise this stack works fine, but it's a constant juggling with 3 apps, which makes if far from perfect.

Curious to try DaVinci Photo and see how it handles large collections of RAWs and how practical it is to use.

Post reply on HN