this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
83 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

4638 readers
228 users here now

A community to post about photography:

We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sadly overexposed the heron a bit but I caught the pose and symmetrical reflection.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KevinFRK@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago (7 children)

Nice photo because of the unusual pose + reflection + framing anyway, but a good example of why RAW format is so useful - I'm pretty sure you'd be able to recover the over-exposed areas with the info in a RAW format version (experience suggests at least one stops worth of recovery should be available).

[–] L3mmyW1nks@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (6 children)

I should have the RAW file somewhere. Since editing myself usually ends in disaster... Should I just lower overall exposure until the bird stops appearing overoxposed or should I try lowering highlights separately or something?
Tips would be appreciated.

[–] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Personally, I found Darktable to be the by far best raw editor I've ever used, and I used quite a few.

I used to think, that digital editing was hard and that I was quite bad at it until I tried Darktable. Darktable is easier and it gives you more consistent and predictable results than any other raw editor. Reason is that other raw editors basically just try to make it look good on the screen and then apply any transformations on top of the "good-looking" copy (Display-Referred workflow), which leads to unpredictable results. I can speak from experience when I say Darktable saves me countless hours in my job. Software really makes a massive difference in your photos and workflow and Darktable's FOSS. So no harm in trying. Yes, I'm shilling Darktable hard because it is so good. Believe me, if you ever had to do any sort of advanced editing in Lightroom or Capture One, you know what I'm talking about when you try twisting the programme's arm into giving you something acceptable and then trying making it look consistent with other pictures.

Best example is highlight recovery. Most programmes don't do real highlight recovery. They just give you back what the camera has already recorded, but have deliberately thrown away to give you a good looking copy right when you load the image the first time. Thanks to applying a curve first, and then everything else on top of said base curve. So if you continue to multiply on top of other transformations, you'll essentially multiply more and more errors, and it will really show.

For starting out, stick to the predefined workflow and modules and work away. There's your active modules and then you can add more modules to your active ones. There is a basic workflow when you load every image that gives you a good-looking result, but thanks to everything being exposed to you, the user, you have full control of all of it. Each module completes processing and hands off the result to the next module from bottom to top. So you always know what is going on in your raw workflow and in what order, which is very important. Funnily enough, other raw editors mostly don't tell you what's happening in what order, so you kind of have to make a guess, and just try and see what you get. It doesn't have to be this way, it can be better. If you want to go really deeply into raw editing, read the excellent manual. But if you just want to keep it surface level, that's alright as well. Just stick to the predefined modules and their order and you'll be golden.

TLDR: Darktable good.

Edit: Fixed typo.

[–] L3mmyW1nks@lemmy.world 2 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

Yeah Darktable is the way to go from what I've gathered so far. At the very least in terms of freeware. I can tell that it does a lot of things very well and offers endless features. I've already played around with it previously and use it exclusively now since I've switched my mainOS to Ubuntu and can't use Lightroom anymore. I did enjoy Lightroom's pre-sets that are offered by default. Filters and such. It helps getting some inspiration in what way the image could be modified to convey itself better.
I'm sure similar filters exist for Darktable as well but it's not as much point-and-click as Lightroom I guess.

Do you know if there are camera (manufacturer) specific modules for Darkroom that can be used? Would be nice to 1-click-recreate what my camera did for the .jpg and go from there. I think it'd help me a lot to adjust the image I've already evaluated instead of starting 'from scratch' regarding pretty much all image data, you know?

[–] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

Well, Darktable by default gives you a proper looking input without having to do anything. It will look boring, but right. So there's nothing you need to do to make it look like a normal picture. Also, if you want, there are manufacturer-specific presets directly built in, which make it look a bit nicer.

Also you can use 3D LUTs files. They are essentially like program agnostic styles. Be sure to set the colour space properly to the colour space of the lot when you use them, however.

Here's an article with a download link that gives you a few very high quality ones. They're all strictly scene-referred, not display-referred like the other programmes, so they are consistent across pictures.

https://onecameraonelens.com/2022/10/13/a-selection-of-darktable-styles/

Also, if you want to do white balance with Darktable, do not do it with the white balance module, but with the color calibration module. The white balance module does something very different in a scene referred process.

Lastly, I highly recommend you also do your own ones because it's fun and it will make your pictures look unique, since it will be your own unique creative colour grade.

If you have any questions, DM me.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)