On 2015-01-06 10:25 PM, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I experimented with both DT and Gimp, and indeed parametric masks can
> give the same luminosity masks in the blog post. The results were almost
> identical. I decided to write a small tutorial on it:
>
> http://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2015/Jan/l
Hi,
So I experimented with both DT and Gimp, and indeed parametric masks can
give the same luminosity masks in the blog post. The results were almost
identical. I decided to write a small tutorial on it:
http://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2015/Jan/luminosity-masks-in-darktable/
Thanks for pointing out
Agree re. dt focus. Besides, I think most of us just need to learn
better what dt can already do compared to other programs out there
(especially me). I was going by one of jo's blog posts from last year
about gegl plans for dt. I have been using gimp 2.9 beta for a while now
without any seriou
It seemed to me that his tequnique was essentially creating a series of
'luminiosity bands' with the various selections. What I didn't see was any
blending or feathering between the apparently sharp edged bands but perhaps
there was some overlap between them not apparent to me.
I'm not sure t
Am Di 06 Jan 2015 00:11:10 CET
schrieb Jack Bowling :
> I believe that once gimp 2.10 is released and the dt graphics engine
> becomes gegl-enabled, we can pass images back and forth between the
> two programs as we see fit. We should guard against loading too much
> into dt when what we need is
Rob Z. Smith writes:
>
> Does anyone understand the mechanics behind these 'self feathering'
claims? I had a quick look at the
> referenced article and it seemed to me to be essentially just creating a
bunch of luminosity ranges
> somewhat analogous to the zone iop and I didn't see any obviou
Dave writes:
> Luminosity masks would be lovely. Perhaps a preset could be made?
> 3 instances of with 3 masks, one for each L, M, D? Or do I not understand
it correctly?
Well, my original intent was a preset for all 7 (or 9) masks in his article
- not just for L, M and D. However, after think
Jack Bowling writes:
> I believe that once gimp 2.10 is released and the dt graphics engine
> becomes gegl-enabled, we can pass images back and forth between the two
> programs as we see fit. We should guard against loading too much into dt
> when what we need is time before the two converge.
johannes hanika writes:
>
> hi,
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Mueen Nawaz nawaz.org>
wrote:Hi,
> Has anyone considered adding luminosity masks
>
> oh i'm glad you asked.. there might be a blog post coming up exactly about
that (translating this word into what it's called in darktable, and
Hi Francisco,
Ulrich's advice seems right on!
In the newer NEF file I'm still not seeing areas of reds with low enough
luminosity to trigger these artifacts. It may just be that the X-Trans
image by a particularly fortuitous chance recorded such saturated dark
reds, but that's a hard to replicate
Nice Jo !!
Very clean and close to the intent of dpreview.
A good example of dt vs 'others'
David
On Wednesday, January 07, 2015 02:01 johannes hanika wrote:
> my try attached. i really don't like the overly saturated colours in the
> dpreview example, also the black fringes (several 10s of pix
Robert,
Thanks for the advice. I've viewed the mountains tutorial again (your
videos are really helpful, so I watch them as soon as they become
available), but that does not appear to explain why:
- a positive shadow correction *darkens* and
- a negative shadow correction *brightens*
some parts of
Hi,
I am quite fond of a mid tones luminosity mask in overlay
mode with a mod s curve ( in gimp ). In DT I have tried
palying with the tone curve and parametric masks on
luminosity but have never managed to get anything like the
gimp method without strong arteficts. I am not skilled
especially i
my try attached. i really don't like the overly saturated colours in the
dpreview example, also the black fringes (several 10s of pixels wide)
around the high contrast edges look displeasing to me. looks like something
like our shadows/highlights has been applied, but without the bilateral
blur, wi
hi,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone considered adding luminosity masks
oh i'm glad you asked.. there might be a blog post coming up exactly about
that (translating this word into what it's called in darktable, and we've
had this feature for quite some ti
Does anyone understand the mechanics behind these 'self feathering' claims?
I had a quick look at the referenced article and it seemed to me to be
essentially just creating a bunch of luminosity ranges somewhat analogous to
the zone iop and I didn't see any obvious basis for overlap between t
i got a fairly good image with the following modules:
base-curve (off)
tone-curve- low contrast
shadows and higlights: shadow: 90 with bilateral filter: radius 175
chromatic aberrations
white balance: 6500k
graduated density: 2.50ev with blue hue and 0.09 saturation
i also added
velvia
local contr
Luminosity masks would be lovely. Perhaps a preset could be made?
3 instances of with 3 masks, one for each L, M, D? Or do I not understand
it correctly?
Regards
Dave
On 6 Jan 2015 09:46, "Mueen Nawaz" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone considered adding luminosity masks to Darktable? For details of
>
I believe that once gimp 2.10 is released and the dt graphics engine
becomes gegl-enabled, we can pass images back and forth between the two
programs as we see fit. We should guard against loading too much into dt
when what we need is time before the two converge. Many thanks to the dt
devs for
19 matches
Mail list logo
