Le dimanche 10 mars 2019 à 19:27 -0400, Ed Gaillard a écrit :
> Thanks! That seems to have helped considerably.
> (The tagged_images_imgid_index already existed, by the way).
I don't have it on my side! I have only tagged_images_tagid_index. So
we have to sort this out and know which index is rea
Hi Ed,
> Yes, Pascal's suggestion does seem to have helped, especially with
> collections by tag, which now work as fast as by folder as far as I
> can tell.
Great! Which of the two index has helped? I would have expected only
the first one would be needed.
--
Pascal Obry / Magny Les Hameau
Bear,
No, I think when Aurelien wrote the description for how to use the Filmic
module (apologies if I'm putting words in his mouth, here... just trying to
explain MY reading of it!), he said "expose to the right" in the sense that
you should ensure NOT to clip highlights.
In other words, if your c
Yes, Pascal's suggestion does seem to have helped, especially with
collections by tag, which now work as fast as by folder as far as I can
tell.
Ed
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:30 PM August Schwerdfeger <
aug...@schwerdfeger.name> wrote:
> Yes (although there is still a substantial speed-up, espe
Thanks! That seems to have helped considerably.
(The tagged_images_imgid_index already existed, by the way).
It is still oddly slow applying star ratings (a few seconds for 2-12
selected images, seemingly not dependent on how many, but just one selected
is faster). Also, typing tags into the taggi
Yes (although there is still a substantial speed-up, especially for
ratings).
Have you tried Pascal's suggestion of adding new indices to the
'tagged_images' table? I am going to try that when I get the time.
--
August Schwerdfeger
aug...@schwerdfeger.name
On 3/10/19 3:29 PM, Ed Gaillard wrote:
Thank you for the information. I'm glad to know that it isn't an issue with
2.6 or Windows.
I see that collecting by film roll as you suggest (or by folder ) makes
darktable much faster going to and from the darkroom, but it is still quite
sluggish adding tags and ratings. Is that what you experie
On Sun, 2019-03-10 at 19:07 +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Vidar Hoel"
>
> (Please don't post images as attachments, post a link within your
> message to an image hosted somewhere else)
>
> > White hair, spots and whiskers seems to get a touch of red, green
- Original Message -
> From: "Vidar Hoel"
(Please don't post images as attachments, post a link within your message to an
image hosted somewhere else)
> White hair, spots and whiskers seems to get a touch of red, green
> and blue. I tried different modules in darktable, without any succ
On 2019-03-10 7:35 a.m., Bruce Williams wrote:
> As for dark areas being recoverable, my experience is that when it comes to
> digital, darks recover much better than highlights.
Quite so, Bruce.
Mine too.
To make a point with a pixel-count obsessed friend (who is currently drooling
over the the L
* Jean-Luc CECCOLI [03-10-19 13:12]:
> > Message du 09/03/19 00:23
> > De : "Patrick Shanahan"
>
> > A : "Darktable Users List"
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : Re: [darktable-user] Modify paths inside the DB
> >
> > * Jean-Luc CECCOLI [03-08-19 18:09]:
> > > Hello,
> >> .../...
> >
> > > But, then
> Message du 10/03/19 18:10
> De : "Jean-Luc CECCOLI"
> A : "Darktable Users List"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [darktable-user] Modify paths inside the DB
>
> > Message du 09/03/19 00:23
> > De : "Patrick Shanahan"
>
> > A : "Darktable Users List"
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : Re: [darktable-user
> Message du 09/03/19 00:23
> De : "Patrick Shanahan"
> A : "Darktable Users List"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [darktable-user] Modify paths inside the DB
>
> * Jean-Luc CECCOLI [03-08-19 18:09]:
> > Hello,
>> .../...
>
> > But, then, I would have to manually process the photos year by year, si
I think I wrote too compulsively in my last e-mail.
I guess what I meant was not so much "expose to the left", but "expose so
as not to clip any highlights", which as you've said, is pretty much what
the manual is saying as well.
As for dark areas being recoverable, my experience is that when it co
Bruce,
But it also says "so that the highlights are at the right of the histogram,
just on the verge of clipping," which is almost a definition of ETTR. In
any case I though that ETTL will mean that any detail that was in very dark
areas will be lost and not recoverable by any means?
*Pete Barlow
I agree, Pete.
I think it SHOULD read "expose to the left".
>From my reading of Aurelien Pierre's blog post on his site (he wrote the
filmic module code), I came away with the impression that filmic does it's
best work on images which are, shall we say, "conservatively" exposed...
i.e. a little und
I've been reading through the section on the filmic module - not sure if
these are errors or if I am misunderstanding things:
Prerequisites - *it says expose the shot "to the right". This implies under
exposing the shot* - surely ETTR implies some over exposure?
and then - *if the picture previe
Ok, I may have an idea.
Can you do that:
- backup your library.db
- run
$ sqlite3 library.db
And enter the following command at the "sqlite >" prompt.
CREATE INDEX tagged_images_index ON tagged_images (imgid, tagid);
And test again. If still slow you may try:
CREATE INDEX tagged_images_im
18 matches
Mail list logo
