But even if we keep the actual disposition, don't you think it's weird
that :
* in/out color profiles are stored in the color tabs, whereas they are
"basic" in the sense they are needed from technical requirements and
always on,
* signal-processing modules are mixed with creative ones
* you get sharpen in enhancements and high-pass in effects, but they
do exactly the same thing
* same for local-contrast and wavelet equalizer
* same for the crop/flip and the perspective correction.
I mean, even with my own workflow set apart, I just think it would make
sense to separate technical and creative modules completely. And by
technical, I mean everything related to image reconstruction and
normalization (things you would do in Matlab). Especially since the
technical modules mostly come early in the pipe, it would make sense to
have them grouped explicitely so that you set them first. Because late
modules like levels and tonecurves depend on the exposure and
tonemapping set earlier in the pipe, so if you begin with the curves and
end with the tonemapping, you will have to redo the curves. Not funny.
Same with unbreak color profile and contrast/lightness/saturation. In
both cases, they perform a gamma correction, but the former does it in
RGB before the input color profile, while the later does it in Lab much
later in the pipe, and they are both specialized on different issues :
don't try to get creative with the unbreak color profile, it should be
used to put the average lightness at 50 % L(ab), nothing else.
Let the UI reflect that, because I have used dt for 7 years, and it's
only now that I look at the code that I understand what's going on. To
be efficient, there are things you need to fix first, for example before
the ICC input profile is applied, and in RGB. A regular user doesn't
stand a chance to figure out what comes first when the unbreak color
profile module is hidden between creative color modules.
And that's just an example. If you don't follow at least roughly the
pixelpipe order, you will end up passing 2-5 times on each module,
whereas it could be done in 2 passes in a reproductible way, fixing
first, tweaking after.
What I would like is to draw a path between critical milestones, that is
between the technical requirements that should be met :
1. having your tonal range mapped between 16 % and 96 % L(ab) before
you apply any input profile, otherwise you mess up the saturation
and shift the colors
2. linearize the tones (beat up the contrast) early and add contrast
late in the pipe,
3. having the contrast fixed in RGB as much as possible to avoid
de/over-saturation,
4. fix the color after you fix the contrast and lightness, especially
if you work in Lab modules
5. normalize the histogram just at the end
6. …
The main problem I have with the current disposition is low-level stuff
comes last in the UI.
Le 08/10/2018 à 22:07, Jason Polak a écrit :
> I've been thinking a little more about this idea, and while some modules
> might be better moved to other tabs (or a new set of tabs) like perhaps
> 'color reconstruction', the current setup still seems to make more sense
> in some ways too. For example:
>
> 1. I prefer the idea of the 'effects' tab (like watermark and framing)
> to be separate from other things like perspective correction or spot
> removal. Those things that are sometimes useful or interesting like
> split toning seem to be genuinely different than correcting spots.
>
> 2. I don't think the base tab should have tonemap in it. It is a more
> advanced tone module that belongs more in a separate tone group.
>
> One of the arguments made in this thread is that there have been many
> usability requests in the past, and therefore that there is a huge
> demand to improve the software. These requests only imply that there is
> a subset of people who have trouble using darktable. Changing darktable
> to be more aligned with their style might make darktable easier to use
> for them, but in turn it might make it more cumbersome to use for others.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that these ideas are bad, but because people who
> want darktable to change are going to be naturally more vocal than
> people who like it as it is, we need to be careful that we don't make it
> worse for many users by changing the UI for a few.
>
> For example, Aurelien's modifications are designed with a certain
> workflow in mind. But for a different type of workflow, the new design
> might actually be worse. For example, I like the idea of having the
> modules grouped by what they do, not what order they come in during the
> workflow. That's just the way my mind works. I suspect that some people
> will prefer a more chronological ordering, and some people will prefer
> an ordering based on their similarities in algorithm. darktable isn't
> exactly like that now because of the basic tab, but aside from the basic
> tab, it mostly is like that.
>
> Another thing we have to be careful with is the 'simplified' scheme
> where a simplified panel is presented but where more advanced
> modifications can be made if necessary. If this ever were to happen
> (like a Lightroom style panel), there should be an option to disable it
> and hide it completely because it would just get in my way. It does
> sound like a good idea for some people, but again, that's just a mindset
> and style of doing things that doesn't apply to everyone. I prefer for
> example to see exactly what is going on and get into the details right away.
>
> I also like the way the modules currently are displayed. I have most of
> the modules activated (though not on a single picture) and I just have
> the 'one open at at time' option, and I find the interface intuitive in
> terms of switching and editing settings. Again, if others think
> differently about how that works I would love there to be a setting for
> them too, but the point is, drastic modifications at this point should
> probably be an option unless it is crystal clear that it benefits everyone.
>
> Part of the appeal of darktable at least to me is that it just lays all
> of its options plain and clear without trying to force a specific
> editing style on the user. I would hate for darktable to become muddled
> like lightroom with a 'clarity' slider or other sliders with ambiguous
> labels that do things under the hood without my knowledge of exactly
> what they are doing. Or even worse, something like
> https://skylum.com/luminar, which aims to make the defaults something
> 95% of people will be happy with....takes the fun out of raw editing in
> my opinion - I am one of those that enjoys raw editing almost as much as
> photography itself.
>
> Can the UI of darktable be improved? I am sure there are some
> improvements to be made (like the middle-mouse click for new module that
> was recently introdced - thanks devs!). On the other hand, I am sure a
> lot of people (including myself) already find darktable to be pretty
> intuitive and snappy to use, and we should be cautious of making changes
> to it lest it upset the greatness it has achieved so far.
>
> Jason
>
> On 2018-10-08 12:59 AM, Dominik Markiewicz wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've also my workflow, but it's a bit different then yours (crop is one
>> of basic corrections for me, I almost never do noise removal as a one of
>> first steps). I'm not a big fan of arbitrary change here. Agree with
>> Jochen that custom tabs could be quite nice.
>>
>> To achieve something similar I just enable modules, add them as
>> `favorite` and save this as a preset. Then add shortcuts for each of
>> presets and I can easily switch between my groups of modules.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dominik
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> darktable developer mailing list
> to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
>
___________________________________________________________________________
darktable developer mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
