It is very easy to apply local-contrast as a default. I have a number of
default (automatic) settings and on 90% of my images I only need to
tweak filmic-RGB if my exposure is correct. dt makes the setting of
defaults so easy, it really surprises me that this type of negative
comment regarding dt is so common. I probably can "punch-out" better and
faster results than LR if speed is some sort of criteria!.
On 2020-07-25 4:28 p.m., Terry Pinfold wrote:
The beauty of LR is the ability to punch out a really good image
quickly with little effort. That is why it is justifiably a
preferred option for professional studio photographers. DT is not
designed as a copy cat program of LR. It is a very complex tool for
photographers who want more than what LR offers. What I do notice when
I look at DT images compared to camera JPGs or LR output is that DT
images are relatively flat and lack contrast and saturation. This is
easily fixed in DT but in LR you never have to give this any real
thought because Adobe have applied this punchiness without user input.
Just make a picture style that includes the level of saturation and
contrast increase that you like. Local contrast also really helps most
images. All Raw images need sharpening and denoising. LR applies this
automatically by DT leaves this to the user.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 21:37, tony Hamilton <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The following quote is copied, without permission (so far), from a
reply by Dr. Terry Pinfold to a post on ‘Camera Calibration
profiles’. It very nicely encapsulates what I am clearly *unable*
to do.
“... With respect, the whole idea of using raw file editors like
LR and DT is to bring out the best in the images and not be
limited by the camera manufacturer's preconceived ideas imposed
into the JPG image created by the camera. I encourage you to
embrace the differences and freedom of DT and not expect DT to be
just a free version of LR. I have LR, but I defer to DT for my RAW
file edits because it allows more creative control than LR ...“
I completely endorse the comments here (as well as earlier replies
from others on this topic) about DT, especially in the context of
migrating from LR, but I just seem to have lost the plot entirely
on being able to get results from processing a RAW file in DT
that are as acceptable as those I obtain with LR. I’m using one
of my better photos as a test case. Looking at LR I can see that I
had to adjust just two variables (exposure and highlights) in LR
to correct the exposure defects and get a result that pleases me
– especially the look of the sky. I guess this took about 1 minute
to do.
In contrast I have spent more 6 months trying to get comfortable
with DT and specifically more than 6 hours on this one image. The
results I get are an embarrassment, even to me (which is not
easy). Is there a way that I can effectively describe the
situation so that others, with the necessary skill and confidence
in DT, can advise me where I am going wrong?
____________________________________________________________________________
darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to
[email protected]
<mailto:darktable-user%[email protected]>
--
Dr Terry Pinfold
Cytometry & Histology Lab Manager
Lecturer in Flow Cytometry
University of Tasmania
17 Liverpool St, Hobart, 7000
Ph 6226 4846 or 0408 699053
____________________________________________________________________________
darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to
[email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________
darktable user mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
