DarkTable ???

[Big Stan]

I was a long time Lightroom user (v1 thru 6) and about a year ago I started using Capture One as my raw processor; I am currently using version 12. Today, I noticed that DT has a new release (2.6.0) and since free is considerably less expensive than $149 (the most recent C1 upgrade price), I am trying to evaluate viable alternatives. BTW, I am a very happy with C1 performance and I have become quite comfortable using it.

I have a few specific questions and am looking for general advice and comments.
1. How easy is it to import images from a Mac into DT?
2. Are there any problems with "Round Tripping" from DT to Affinity Photo?
3. The latest version of C1 has a Luma mask that produces very good results, is there a similar capability with DT?
4. How steep is the DT learning curve? Are there any hints / suggestions to facilitate learning a new tool?

Thank you

[pnodrog]

Being a LR6 user I can't answer any of your questions but I will be reading with interest any informed answers you do get.

[Big Stan]

Hopefully we will both learn something.

[JBW]

I was a long time Lightroom user (v1 thru 6) and about a year ago I started using Capture One as my raw processor; I am currently using version 12. Today, I noticed that DT has a new release (2.6.0) and since free is considerably less expensive than $149 (the most recent C1 upgrade price), I am trying to evaluate viable alternatives. BTW, I am a very happy with C1 performance and I have become quite comfortable using it.

I have a few specific questions and am looking for general advice and comments.
1. How easy is it to import images from a Mac into DT?
2. Are there any problems with "Round Tripping" from DT to Affinity Photo?
3. The latest version of C1 has a Luma mask that produces very good results, is there a similar capability with DT?
4. How steep is the DT learning curve? Are there any hints / suggestions to facilitate learning a new tool?

Thank you

I also use C1 v12. When I was using v11 I tried out Dark Table as an easier to use Gimp. Admittedly as I enter old age my 'lets learn something new mode' doesn't work so well but I found the learning curve somewhat steep. I went back to C1. Which is not to say it isn't a good system. It just didn't offer me anything I couldn't do in C1. Perhaps if i had stuck with I would have found uses for it.

[dje]

Hi Stan

I have a copy of Darktable installed on my Windows 10 machine. I don't use it much simply because I have other alternatives. It seems to be a reasonable raw editor with quite a lot of features. I'd agree with Brian in saying that it has a fairly steep learning curve.

• Importing images is easy
• As fas as I know, there is not a specific "round tripping" facility with Affinity or any other external editor for that matter. You would have to export your image as a tiff and then open it in another editor.
• I believe Darktable has some form of "luma mask" using the parametric mask option. See this link.

There are other alternatives of course, not free but reasonably priced - eg After Shot Pro 3 and ACDSee Ultimate. I've used both and find them quite good.

Dave

[Big Stan]

Thank you all.
I was hoping to hear more upbeat / encouraging responses, but it is still early.

[JBW]

Thank you all.
I was hoping to hear more upbeat / encouraging responses, but it is still early.

rah rah sis boom ba! Remember that Capture 1 Sony Pro was created to do absolutely stunning things with Sony Cameras. DT. is generic but tweakable. I'm just no good at tweaking and need a well setup out of the box system.

[Manfred M]

I was a long time Lightroom user (v1 thru 6) and about a year ago I started using Capture One as my raw processor; I am currently using version 12. Today, I noticed that DT has a new release (2.6.0) and since free is considerably less expensive than $149 (the most recent C1 upgrade price), I am trying to evaluate viable alternatives. BTW, I am a very happy with C1 performance and I have become quite comfortable using it.

I have a few specific questions and am looking for general advice and comments.

As you own Affinity, I don't understand why you are looking to learn another third party raw converter. Affinity has one that is built-in and is perfectly serviceable.

1. How easy is it to import images from a Mac into DT?

Export your DarkTable edits as a 16-bit TIFF and import those into Affinity.

2. Are there any problems with "Round Tripping" from DT to Affinity Photo?

Export 16-bit TIFF from Affinity and open again in DarkTable, but for the life of me I don't understand why you would want to do that. In "old days" the work flow was raw converter / parametric editor -> pixel based editor; i.e. a one-way street. While the boundaries have blurred between the two, there are good strong technical reasons to stay in the pixel based editor, like Affinity, once you have done the raw conversion.

3. The latest version of C1 has a Luma mask that produces very good results, is there a similar capability with DT?

If it does, it is well hidden. Again, if you use Affinity, it has some excellent selection tools that will allow you to create masks that do what C1 luma does.

4. How steep is the DT learning curve? Are there any hints / suggestions to facilitate learning a new tool?

Thank you

Unfortunately, like a lot of the FOSS tools out there including RawTherapee, Gimp, etc. the software has been put together in a way that is not particularly user friendly. All have long learning curves and the one advantage most commercial software works is that they have spent a lot more time ensuring that the end user can use it. That being said, C1 is not the most user-friendly piece of software out there either and Phase One could do a better job here.

[revi]

Darktable is the raw processor/editor I use (with GIMP for the stuff DT can't handle), but under Linux (so Affinity etc.
are not available). After trying a few, I found I preferred Darktable. But it has its quirks.

Importing is easy (select directory, and everything gets loaded into DTs database). For exporting, there are quite a
few options, from jpeg, png (8 or 16 bit/channel), through TIFF (16/32 bit) to several floating point formats. No idea
what Affinity can handle, nor what its preferred format is. (Btw, I don't understand that preference for 16-bit TIFF for
single layer images, files tend to be much larger than 16-bit PNGs).

The masking options depend on the exact module, as different modules work in different colour spaces (LAb or RBG).
Darktable has an option called "parametric masks", where masking is done on channel values. For those modules
working in Lab, one of the avaiable channels is L (next to a and b). The others provide HSL channels (and RGB). If I
understand lumnance masks correctly, both L channels should give you something close to that.

There is a learning curve, as there are a lot of modules and options. Also, not all controls are immediately
obvious, as you stay very close to the basic algorithms used in each module.
But you have the option to adapt the GUI by hiding modules you don't use, and collecting the most used modules
in one place. That reduces the complexity already quite a lot.

Also, DT always applies the active modules in a fixed order, independant of the order in which you do your edits. It's the latter
that is shown in the "history stack", but again, that order has nothing to do with the order in which the modules are applied on
export of the finished image. The only place where you can explicitly change the order of application is between copies of the
same module (useful in combination with masks for e.g. "exposure" or "local contrast").

DT always applies a few modules automatically when working with raw files: "whitebalance" (with camera WB), "demosaic",
"basecurve" (with exact curve depending on your camera), "sharpen", and a few others. Those are the ones you need anyway
to get a (decent) result. The settings can of course be changed. I usually do this for the basecurve, as I don't like the one
selected for my camera.

[Big Stan]

Thank you all and particularly Manfred. After reading your responses, I guess the bottom line is, "you don't get what you don't pay for".

[Hevii Guy]

Unfortunately, like a lot of the FOSS tools out there including RawTherapee, Gimp, etc. the software has been put together in a way that is not particularly user friendly. All have long learning curves...

Stan, please don't be put off by such subjective statements. The same can usually be said of any unfamiliar software. Take some time to browse the manual, view some of the many excellent (along with the "crappy") YouTube videos, and lurk or participate in the User Forum and I can assure you that you'll not only become confident that darktable is a very powerful and capable raw processor (which in some cases actually exceeds the capabilities of the hyped commercial stuff) but also that it's surprisingly a very easy-to-use tool once you become familiar with it.

Just give it chance. You have nothing to lose other than your monthly subscription payment

There you have it, Stan: Another subjective comment. Perhaps the balance will compel you to delve into the subject in order to discover the objective nuggets that will allow you to determine what is best for you.

[Manfred M]

Stan, please don't be put off by such subjective statements.

You are a fan of FOSS software, so your view of this software is flavoured by this. Your statement is subjective too. Please note, I also criticized the C1 UI in the same paragraph, and I have been a C1 user for 5 or 6 years.

I do try to look at things a bit more objectively than you might believe.

I spent much of my career leading design teams and usability was always one of the key factors that went into the designs. Unfortunately, this does not seem to receive a lot of attention in software design, both in commercial and FOSS deliverables. The only company that truly seems to "get it" is Apple, but then their whole design approach has been lead by Jony Ives for a very long time. Having an Industrial Designer, rather than software engineers in charge of the product and software interface design is what differentiates that company from most others.

When it comes to FOSS, the issue tends to be that the developers are primarily software people who like crafting interesting solutions to problems. Often there is little overall architectural continuity as there is limited control over what individual developers contribute. The UI seems to be an afterthought and often there seems little interest in the mainstream user community. FOSS developers are usually doing this for fun. Paid for software developers are trying to make money and if their product does not sell, they are out of a job, so there is an incentive to produce a product that is useful to the user community.

I use both C1 and DxO PhotoLab because of some very specific functionality that they provide. If RawTherapee, DarkTable, Gimp, etc. developed some class leading algorithms that did something meaningful for my workflow, I would use them in an instant. Unfortunately, the only thing that they seem to have going for them is that they are free. In my view, that is a compelling reason for some, but definitely not for me as my time is worth something.

[DanK]

I'm just a naive bystander to this conversation, as I have never tried Darktable. However, my limited experience with FOSS comports with Manfred's description.

Our of curiosity, I looked at the linked Darktable forum. Here are some entries from the first page (admittedly cherry-picked):

For a while i had snapshot packages for darktable in my home namespace on the OBS. Not too long ago I added Debian/Ubuntu support with borrowing some files from pmjdebruijn’s ppa and in the end bremner’s official debian …

[Dev] Tag master commits which should be backported?

[solved] darktable piwigo plugin build fails with curl <7.62

DT 2.6.0rc1: Color Look-up Table, picker not working?

Not really for the faint of heart.

[JBW]

Perhaps it's time to remember that photography is part science and part art. It may also do us well to remember that even the science part is subjective.

For some of us the freedom of a GNU based processor is great. For others, others like myself it is not so great and very intimidating.

I've been told by members of this forum that there are two basic types of processors and that to get (by their understanding) a good, let alone great shot I need to use both. Maybe so but my mind works best with one set of possibilities. Still and all if the monthly competition or the reaction from those who view my work is to be counted every now and again people like what I shoot.

In a nutshell: One size does not fit all.

Brian

[xpatUSA]

Perhaps it's time to remember that photography is part science and part art. It may also do us well to remember that even the science part is subjective.

For some of us the freedom of a GNU based processor is great. For others, others like myself it is not so great and very intimidating.

I've been told by members of this forum that there are two basic types of processors and that to get (by their understanding) a good, let alone great shot I need to use both. Maybe so but my mind works best with one set of possibilities. Still and all if the monthly competition or the reaction from those who view my work is to be counted every now and again people like what I shoot.

In a nutshell: One size does not fit all.

Brian

Well said, Brian.

As to "two basic types of processors" I do not agree with the forum consensus view and I am glad that you are wary of that view.

Horses for courses, eh?

[JBW]

Well said, Brian.

As to "two basic types of processors" I do not agree with the forum consensus view and I am glad that you are wary of that view.

Horses for courses, eh?

Absolutely

[revi]

I'm just a naive bystander to this conversation, as I have never tried Darktable. However, my limited experience with FOSS comports with Manfred's description.

Our of curiosity, I looked at the linked Darktable forum. Here are some entries from the first page (admittedly cherry-picked):

Not really for the faint of heart.

Indeed, you can find a lot of reports like that. But have a good look at the ones you quoted...

Those comments deal with building DT from source, or using a pre-release (rc1) version of the program. Not something you
could even try with the big commercial programs, and not representative for normal use of DT.

Again, the quoted comments do not reflect the normal use of a stable version of the program.

[Manfred M]

Ted & Brian - it's all about the right tool for the job.

At one time Adobe thought it had three specific market segments and built three very specific products that would handle those specific target needs:

The amateurs were covered by their Photoshop Elements line.

The retail photography market; the part of the market that sold directly to the public; portrait photographers, baby photographers and wedding photographers, whose needs were minor tweaks that couple be accomplished with little time or effort with a high degree of being able to automate functions. This is the group of photographers that Lightroom was targeted at.

Finally, there was the commercial segment where the buyers were sophisticated and knowledgeable corporate clients that demanded absolutely perfect images for use in publications and advertising materials. This is the market niche that Photoshop was targeted at.

Over time these lines have blurred. As an example, retail photographers who offer high end products (i.e. large prints) will use Photoshop to create these products. Advanced amateurs and photographic artists (a.k.a. "Fine Art Photographers") use whatever tools they have mastered to create their works and will use high-end tools to achieve their results.

The various other commercial and open source products provide alternatives to the Adobe products. The proprietary commercial products run on the Apple and / or Microsoft operating systems. Open source operating system users (i.e. Linux) have to use open source software like Gimp, DarkTable, RawTherapee, etc, most of which have been ported to MacOS and Windows as well. Commercial, proprietary software developers have no incentive to open source their software so these programs are not available in the Linux world.

So this is all about the right tool for the job at hand. Along with the tools goes the knowledge and skills to use them.

If you are fine with the results you get from using a parametric editor, great. You have a tool that you are comfortable with and can achieve results that can be accomplished within the capabilities of that type of tool. The hundreds of thousands of wedding, portrait and baby photographers seem to be able to create products that their clientele buys from them.

If you want to get to a higher level in your work, then you should consider going to the next step. One highly regarded fine art photographer once told me that the difference between a good image and a great image is all about handling the local (small) details. If one looks at the works of the great photographers of the past; for instance Ansel Adams, that is exactly how he worked by spending hours and hours burning and dodging the local details. Parametric editors don't have the tools to do this well; this is the realm of pixel based editors with adjustment layers, blending modes and layer masks.

[Big Stan]

"If you want to get to a higher level in your work, then you should consider going to the next step. One highly regarded fine art photographer once told me that the difference between a good image and a great image is all about handling the local (small) details. If one looks at the works of the great photographers of the past; for instance Ansel Adams, that is exactly how he worked by spending hours and hours burning and dodging the local details. Parametric editors don't have the tools to do this well; this is the realm of pixel based editors with adjustment layers, blending modes and layer masks."

AMEN!!!
The great thing about PS & AP is that you no longer have to inhale all those chemical smells. But, you still have to spend a lot of time getting to a great image. Adams and Stieglitz would have loved the Knoll brothers.

[xpatUSA]

Ted & Brian - it's all about the right tool for the job.

At one time Adobe thought it had three specific market segments and built three very specific products that would handle those specific target needs:

The amateurs were covered by their Photoshop Elements line.

The retail photography market; the part of the market that sold directly to the public; portrait photographers, baby photographers and wedding photographers, whose needs were minor tweaks that couple be accomplished with little time or effort with a high degree of being able to automate functions. This is the group of photographers that Lightroom was targeted at.

Finally, there was the commercial segment where the buyers were sophisticated and knowledgeable corporate clients that demanded absolutely perfect images for use in publications and advertising materials. This is the market niche that Photoshop was targeted at.

Over time these lines have blurred. As an example, retail photographers who offer high end products (i.e. large prints) will use Photoshop to create these products. Advanced amateurs and photographic artists (a.k.a. "Fine Art Photographers") use whatever tools they have mastered to create their works and will use high-end tools to achieve their results.

The various other commercial and open source products provide alternatives to the Adobe products. The proprietary commercial products run on the Apple and / or Microsoft operating systems. Open source operating system users (i.e. Linux) have to use open source software like Gimp, DarkTable, RawTherapee, etc, most of which have been ported to MacOS and Windows as well. Commercial, proprietary software developers have no incentive to open source their software so these programs are not available in the Linux world.

So this is all about the right tool for the job at hand. Along with the tools goes the knowledge and skills to use them.

If you are fine with the results you get from using a parametric editor, great. You have a tool that you are comfortable with and can achieve results that can be accomplished within the capabilities of that type of tool. The hundreds of thousands of wedding, portrait and baby photographers seem to be able to create products that their clientele buys from them.

If you want to get to a higher level in your work, then you should consider going to the next step. One highly regarded fine art photographer once told me that the difference between a good image and a great image is all about handling the local (small) details. If one looks at the works of the great photographers of the past; for instance Ansel Adams, that is exactly how he worked by spending hours and hours burning and dodging the local details. Parametric editors don't have the tools to do this well; this is the realm of pixel based editors with adjustment layers, blending modes and layer masks.

Personally, I have several editors; here are three of them which I do indeed use for different purposes:

FastStone Viewer
RawTherapee V5.5
The GIMP, both V2.8 and 2.9