>>4351612
Here is my .CR3 file
https://filebin.net/j5ra65dj5t1ydaa7

Why is it that I can't ever get my RAW file to look like my jpg?
There are issues with blues and greens.
The blues look to purple and the greens look too yellow.

I shoot simultaneously jpg + RAW. So my jpgs are perfect how I want. I just want the RAW to have the base look as the jpg so I can improve on it, yet I have to go through so many steps just for my RAW too look like yellow shit.

I should have no issues with white balance since the jpg is perfect. I manually set the temperature based on the environment.

Why I am not understanding with RAW or what am I doing wrong?

File: Marx Bros-Night at the Opera.jpg (490 KB, 1589x1162)

490 KB JPG

>>4351612
Max out Clarity, Vibrance & Texture, Turn saturation up until thine eyes bleed, then reduce by 5%, then put max large grain on & post crop vignetting. Then give it a good 4 stops kick in the exposure. Then call it a "Eghties filter" or if you sat through part of a video editing tut on youtube, call it a "Vintage Film LUT" bc you're a fucking toad who has been naughty and very much needs a shpanking.

It's true, I have seen it.

>buy film, load in Nikon F5
>walk around and take pics of whatever tickles my fancy
>chicks dig the film camera
>they ask to see my pics, but I tell them I can’t because it’s film, which only piques their curiosity further
>shoot the last frame, and hear a low rumbling sound in the distance, fast approaching
>it’s the chicks from before, they just can’t control themselves, insatiable lust
>run for my life, can’t possibly handle them all at once
>barely make it to the camera shop, barricade the door
>pay $5/roll to have it developed, sneak out the back, escape home
>pick up negatives next day, scan them at home
>each frame looks great because it’s film, no presets or fiddling around with RAW processing software required
>crack a beer and enjoy my pics
Why does anyone shoot digital, again?

File: 240824061.jpg (3.27 MB, 2000x3999)

3.27 MB JPG

>>4351614
original, 5min in c1 (7 total adjustments), c1 raw default
not perfect but you should be just as close within 10min in darktable, if not, you really need to learn the program more
if blues look too purple or greens look too yellow, change them, that's why you shoot raw
>I should have no issues with white balance since the jpg is perfec
that's only true if you match the full jpg processing pipeline of your camera, same wb is a good starting point, but you need the same jpg adjustments to match
also its retarded and pointless try and match jpg perfectly, you should be editing to get a desired result, not match a jpg

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.11 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:24 07:32:02
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3999

>>4351621
>scanning
you are shooting digital.

>>4351612
Bump because OP hasn't found actual help, and this topic interests me.

>>4351740
Just to be clear....
>original jpg is 1st image
>edited raw is 2nd image
>unedited raw is 3rd image

If thats the case wow, nice work, but you say your self you were forced to hue shift.

It's not that I am just trying to match the jpg, its that I want the raw image to at least look like the jpg by default to then improve on it.
The whole image taking process revolves around accepting the jpg, since shooting raw will only show you a jpg version of that raw image on the cameras screen. I accepted it then and there, then I would like to have it in the same state.
Not sure if it make sense, my brain is currently fried.

>>4351759
Yes. Simple adjustments that Darktable has as well, no need to mess with profiles or ICC at all. It's not nice work, it's literally moving a few sliders around under 5 minutes.
>but you say your self you were forced to hue shift
Yes, if you plan on shooting RAW, you will need to actually process your images. If you don't want to process your images, don't shoot RAW.
>It's not that I am just trying to match the jpg, its that I want the raw image to at least look like the jpg by default to then improve on it.
So then you get close, and save those settings as a preset you can apply to future RAWs.
The sooner you can detach your mindset from camera JPG's being relevant at all, the better. You are still basing what the default ought to be as the JPG. Stop caring about JPGs. Focus on the data that's in your RAW, and learn how to adjust it. All RAW's look ugly by default, people simply learn how to process them.

>>4351740
people keep saying "learn darktable" but i have never, ever seen the great results this is supposedly capable of

it actually consistently looks as bad as sony, even if you dont have a sony

>>4351759
>you say your self you were forced to hue shift
The JPG processing of your camera also hue shifts. So if you are trying to match it (which you say you aren't), you will also need to hue shift. I could opt to not hue shift at all, but it would of course look different. Just as your JPG would look different if it weren't hue shifting as much.

>>4351771
I'm gonna install Darktable and redo >>4351740 to see what I can get

File: 8x-IMG_0053.jpg (3.28 MB, 3000x2400)

3.28 MB JPG

>>4351740
Did you even try?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Photographer	Adrian J.
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4351778
But your grass is still yellow and not green. The jpg represents reality and how I saw it.
My issue is the yellow grass

File: maxresdefault.jpg (115 KB, 1280x720)

115 KB JPG

>>4351784
I'mma finna let you in on the secret of photography homies keep missing even after ansel adams wrote a book about it

Reality looks like shit, bruh. No cap.

>>4351787
That man has the single most punchable face I've seen on /p/
>>4351784
Kind of a catch 22 innit? """Natural""" colours look pretty shit and half the reason JPEGs can come out half decent is because they typically crank saturation and contrast as well as play with the colour balance. Auto white balance will override your sunlight vibes etc. etc. But then if anyone tweaks things in a RAW editor, people say you're cheating and faking it. As >>4351787 said, reality often looks like shit. And to cap it off, I could play with the RAW as >>4351778 did and it could come out twenty different ways I like, but it's probably not how you saw it irl.

>>4351787
oh no the blue and teal monster left his containment thread

File: 8x-IMG_0053 2.jpg (3.96 MB, 3000x2400)

3.96 MB JPG

Ugh fine

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Photographer	Adrian J.
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4351790
I realized I fucking hate youtube photogrphers
then I realized I fucking hate youtubers

then I realized I fucking hate the internet.

>>4351740
>>4351795
one of these people shoots film. you can tell which.

File: northborderss.png (1.07 MB, 1094x608)

1.07 MB PNG

>>4351612
>>4351740
>>4351769
>>4351774
>>4351787
Okay, so you forced me to accept that RAW, doesnt matter from which camera, comes out shitty and that different programs interpret the RAW file differently. Darktable will give me a different output than Rawtherapee etc.

Now playing around with the modules I found out which module actually helps me the most in making the colors of the RAW file resemble the ones in the jpg.
All it took was the 'color contrast' module. Here I had to increase the green-magenta contrast alot and lower the blue-yellow contrast a little.
The I used the 'color equalizer' module for a slight shif tin hue and saturation. Done!

Now the sky is blue and the grass is green!
All I wanted were the correct colors as a starting point.
I can finally edit like my favorite youtuber and make everything orange and teal

Thanks for slightly guiding me on the right path.

>>4351841
Go ahead and post it
>raw comes out shitty
Is this a canon exclusive thing?

File: IMG_0053_02.jpg (1.08 MB, 1000x653)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4351841
edited RAW

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:24 21:25:31
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	653
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

File: IMG_0053_01.jpg (1.06 MB, 1000x653)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4351844
north bordeers edited RAW

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:24 21:24:29
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	653
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

>>4351844
>>4351845
both look worse than the original jpg

>>4351850
saturation-wise or sharpness-wise`?

>>4351845
>>4351844
Yeah this sucks

>>4351795
This is almost perfect. The light is not the best so it can’t be perfect.

>>4351778
This is good but needs more green taken out, the yellows oranged up and the blues more silvery. Take your jokes seriously if you want them to actually be funny.

>>4351853
saturation wise for both, i wouldnt never judge sharpness off a 1000px file
the northern borders just looks awful though

File: IMG_0053.jpg (1.07 MB, 2400x1589)

1.07 MB JPG

I know it's not the same, but this is my take

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:24 21:50:46
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1589
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

>>4351861
Why is it so dull?

>>4351845
This is unironically the best image here, it just evokes instant 'western' (as in the movie genre) feels

https://discuss.pixls.us/t/canon-90d-cr3-very-poor-colour-rendering/23531/2

What did Glen Butcher (awesome name) mean when he said "I took DPReview’s ISO 100 comparison tool .CR3 for the 90D and made ICC matrix profiles from the extract of the ColorChecker"?

How did he make the icc matrix?
If its possible to take an image extract its icc, then I'd rather take one of my jpgs with their specific canon profile style (.pf3) and extract the eintire color profile to then use on my raws as a base.

File: darktable.jpg (2.28 MB, 2000x2668)

2.28 MB JPG

>>4352007
Are you doing fine art printing or scientific shooting that requires exact colors? Are you matching two different systems? Totally unnecessary, but you can grab a color checker and use the related software to make your own. This just seems like another avenue of distraction to prevent yourself from simply learning how to process.

Checking in for >>4351776
Original jpg vs darktable. I have literally never used Darktable before in my life, most of the time was spent figuring out where things are, but this is what I got within 10 min. No ICC profiles or anything like, just the same basic adjustments available in any RAW program. Still lots of room for improvement in matching, but this shouldn't be as hard as you're making it out to be. You should 100% get as close as this within 5min.

>>4352133
Just curious, what camera? Darktable has varying levels of compatibility with different camera models.

>>4352133
Both look like dull shit with radioactive greens. Is /p/ colorblind?

>>4352138
It's the same file OP posted, from a 90D.
>>4352140
I agree, I also don't like either, not my taste in editing, but that wasn't the point of this.

>>4351865
because the whole palette is green brown and gray

>>4352145
But the capture one edit wasn't dull

Could stand to tone the greens around the house down more though

File: IMG_0053_01.jpg (1.18 MB, 2400x1589)

1.18 MB JPG

>>4352154
how about now?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:25 18:00:45
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1589
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

>>4352158
Why is the sky so dark? Why is there so little contrast? It's a bright sunny day. Why are the greens so chemical looking?

Are there hints of pink in that cloud? Yikes

>>4352158
my brother you have turned the cliff faces violet

File: darktable2.jpg (2.06 MB, 2000x2668)

2.06 MB JPG

>>4352158
yours vs op's original jpg

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.11 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2668
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:25 09:44:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2668

>>4352193
>all that effort for this
Its official
Capture one > lightroom > jpeg > dorktable

>>4352200
People who cant afford Photoshop say this.

>>4352203
>People who can't afford $10 a month
Do you ever listen to yourself

>>4352200
Don't forget canon DPP, which would have produced better results than niggatable with 1/4 the effort.

File: jpgdarktablec1.jpg (3.21 MB, 2000x3995)

3.21 MB JPG

>>4352200
In fairness, this is OP's JPG vs 10 min Darktable vs 5 min in C1. The differences that are there could easily corrected with a few more minutes.
I don't understand why people are struggling so much with Darktable, this was literally first time ever using it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.11 (Windows)
Photographer	Adrian J.
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6960
Image Height	4640
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:25 09:58:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3995
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4352214
All of this effort to try and match the jpeg, which canon dpp literally does flawlessly

You install capture one/lrc/phocus to do a better job than jpeg. Not the same. You install dorktable to waste a bunch of time getting slightly uglier colors.

>move saturation and contrast slightly up
#effort

>>4352216
>which canon dpp literally does flawlessly
Canon will match perfectly, but it's not like the DPP JPG is an ideal end goal. This shouldn't be considered much effort, anyone who has used Darktable before should get just as close within a few minutes. It's shocking to me how far off people in this thread are.
I do prefer C1 over everything else, but I'd feel comfortable using any program if I really had to. I'm not incompetent. Blaming the software is not far off from blaming gear.
>You install dorktable to waste a bunch of time getting slightly uglier colors.
You can get ugly or good colors in any program. If Darkroom is always ugly for you, that just speaks to your own abilities. You should help contribute to this thread and post some examples of this shoot with good colors so we can see.

>>4352220
>Blaming the software is not far off from blaming gear.
The difference is software wastes a massive amount of time. It's like saying "you're blaming gear" to "i do not want to spend any time installing gentoo faggot linux and exchanging my graphics card for one with working drivers".
>just profile your camera brooooo

Gear just changes image quality unless its a total shitshow like a fuji anything/nikon z6

>>4352224
People in this thread are wasting more time complaining about Darktable than the time it took to actually make these adjustments. Darktable doesn't waste any more time than any other RAW editor. Didn't bring up profiling cameras, sometimes people blame gear for their own abilities, just like people here blaming Darktable.
Thank you for confirming you have no positive contribution to this thread, sometimes wish I could take the easy road too and just be constantly negative and never offer anything of value.

>>4352133
can you please post the history stack?

>>4352164
I was using a polarizer when I made the photo

>>4352229
The only things I made adjustments to were:
>base curve, tone curve, shadows and highlights - which all kinda do similar things in different ways
>color equalizer (HSL), color balance - adjusting global and specific colors
Just color and tone. White balance and color calibration were left on at default, everything else was off. You could do basically everything through just the tone curves alone if you really wanted to.
Think less about the specific process steps, you can do things dozens of different ways. Think more about what the actual changes are in the image and how to get there.

>>4352228
I posted the only edit in this thread that actually looks good
>>4351795
But yes I agree the greens by the houses could be better

Believe me, I used to use darktable daily. Skin tones in particular are ass to work with and it is only a matter of time before you move up from 10yo DSLRs and start running into lenses and cameras for which freetards are incapable of producing good profiles for.

Thankfully I have a job that pays me more money than I need so I can take some of that excess and turn it into a program that doesn't waste more time than I already spent at work.

>>4352244
>I posted the only edit in this thread that actually looks good
Point of OP wasn't to look good, they wanted to match the JPG (dumb I know). Just confirming, are you saying >>4351795 is yours? Also that you weren't trying to mimic the OP JPG, you edited from scratch with good colors as the goal and that's the result? Or is >>4351778 the good color one?
I also use other programs ordinarily, but DT seemed easy enough for my first time, shame you had so much trouble with it.

>>4352247
Matching JPG looks like shit. If I wanted to match JPG I'd install DPP. Simple as.

>Shame you had so much trouble with it
I have a low tolerance for stupidity in tools. I have a low tolerance for finishing someone elses job for them. And I have an extreme ideological opposition to the entire free software community and the GPL itself. Trade secrets are not open human rights. I genuinely hate the idea of making it impossible for a software developer to profit from their work with a viral copyleft license. All GNU has achieved is all but killing a better OS (Actual UNIX), killing its successor before it got off the ground (plan 9), and polluting the world with genuinely bad software.

>>4352251
So which of those two is the good color one? I'm slow, so it's hard to follow when you don't respond directly.
Glad I don't know enough about software to care about all that. Interesting to be so involved in a thread about a program you don't like, but that speaks to the negativity I mentioned earlier.

>>4352255
The one I linked, you fool
>I know about software so I dont care
Yes, that's what shitnux and other freetard garbage users always say. "Oh I dont care, im so good at computers, i dont even notice the trials and tribulations of updating gentoo". I paid my way through college by being much better at computers and software development than them, as did 99% of the tech and creative worlds (uses windows/mac). So it's funny that they keep saying that, as if its a point of pride. Tech is the most menial and soul sucking job, and putting up with bad software is not much of a hobby. Using a program made by people whose time was worth money is much better because I can waste less of my time fixing and more time working.

Darktable, shitnux, libreoffice, emacs, the story is always the same
"Oh it is almost, no I mean as good, no i mean better, you just need to learn to use it"
Why? A good writer grabs a ballpoint pen and puts word to paper. A poser writer first learns to carve his own nibs and mix his own inks.

>>4352257
Great thanks, just wanted to confirm >>4351795 is your standard for good color, that was all.
>Yes, that's what shitnux
I said I don't know, I don't use Linux for that exact reason. Darktable is like any other RAW editor though, and I know those. Same tools, just different names and location.
>A good writer grabs a ballpoint pen and puts word to paper. A poser writer first learns to carve his own nibs and mix his own inks.
You are the one saying certain nibs and inks aren't good enough though. If you were good at editing, you shouldn't be so limited by using a specific software. You are the one focusing on the specific tools.

>>4352257
a common opinion

the inventor of C and UNIX famously preferred using windows 2000 and only accessing non-windows systems through a remote terminal

>>4352260
>You are the one saying certain nibs and inks aren't good enough though.
A raw editor without a usable default, wide support for contemporary cameras, and a convoluted mess of half finished conflicting modules, surrounded by copes like "raws always start out ugly!" and "using a raw editor means reading the manual first!", is very far from being analogous to using a bic instead of a pilot.

It's more like coping about fountain pen maintenance, nib tuning, and paper types instead of just using a goddamn prepackaged pen.

>>4352260
>Rich greens, soulful blue shadows, and fixing the overpolarized sky is not good color
It's definitely better than yours given the shitty light

We're not even going into the issues where shittable really diverges from other software, besides how often good camera/lens profiles are missing - like the lack of AI masking and passable noise reduction and sharpening capabilities, which brings on a lot of darkcope
>editing that much is le bad
>actually you should have used a lower ISO and a flash dont blame darktable for not doing what every other program does
>sharpening is heckin fake

>>4352262
I get it now, you hate Darktable so much, you need all that valuable time saved using better programs, so you can post negatively about it online strangers.

>>4352265
>nooo stop bullying me
deal with it nerd. techies get the swirlies.

>>4352251
>>4352257
holy corporate boolicker. do you have to rage about libre software all the time? just keep quiet and pay your favorite companies so they can continue to contribute GLP3 code mkay

>>4352268
Holy freetard bootlicker. Do you have to rage about real software all the time? Just keep quiet and try and work around the flaws of tools made by people whose time wasnt worth paying for. After you get used to it, saint stallman will talk you through why bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia are social goods and the inevitable abolishment of private property.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQxKURvE9iI

>>4352269
holy shit you must have struggled REALLY hard with darktable

>>4352270
I only REALLY struggled when lens correction profiles were totally absent for gear I had no choice but to use, as it was provided to me as part of the job. And then when I upgraded to a camera from this century and almost everything was unsupported or poorly supported.

Otherwise it was just the usual low standards of garbage tech: Just more time wasting work that the developer should have already done for you. If real programs are buying gel pens at walmart darktable is definitely buying a noodlers fountain pen and getting autistic about ink/paper combos and nib/feed tuning just so the content of your writing can be the exact same by the time someone reads it.
>yeah but git gud, just lrn2...
>do something important?
>;_;

It is a better use of my time to be full of hate right now. If you were dealing with what I'm dealing with now, you'd probably be smashing walls.

>>4352276
>If real programs are buying gel pens at walmart darktable is definitely buying a noodlers fountain pen and getting autistic about ink/paper combos and nib/feed tuning just so the content of your writing can be the exact same by the time someone reads it.
Could you elaborate on this analogy, more on how it relates back to the programs. Is it that Darktable required too much tinkering for you, or had too many options? Darktable users talk too much about things like ICC profiles? Again, I'm slow and don't quite get how analogy maps back to the programs. Have you never found users of other programs to go hyperautisic about specific settings?

I had never used it before today, and found it just as accessible as any other RAW processor I've used. No setup required at all, used the exact same adjustment tools I would in other programs, didn't take any more time than other programs.

>It is a better use of my time to be full of hate right now.
You are what you put out there. Hate is easy mode, it's not hard to challenging to be full of hate like you are, it's really the lazy way to deal with life. I bet if you actually tried being positive, things would turn around, but that's probably too hard for you.

>>4352276
making a fool of yourself online isn't going to help

>>4352280
>I had never used it before today, and found it just as accessible as any other RAW processor I've used. No setup required at all, used the exact same adjustment tools I would in other programs, didn't take any more time than other programs.
You lie.

>Hate is easy mode
Hate is satisfying. When has positivity gotten anywhere anyways? Positivity is submission and acceptance. Hate put us on the moon, from the rockets to the actual journey, all fueled by hate. The only more powerful passion than hate is curiosity.

>>4352286
>You lie.
What am I lying about? I had never used Darktable before today, downloaded solely for this thread, but have used LR, C1, and others for +10 years. I did find it as accessible as other programs I've used. It did not require any setup beyond initial installation. I did use the same tools, listed >>4352243, which I use in other programs. The extent it took more time (a few minutes more) was simply figuring out where certain tools were, but now I know.

>When has positivity gotten anywhere anyways?
I have fun being positive. This thread seemed positive, seems like OP was getting advice and examples they wanted. Hopefully other people learned along the way too. I used to learn a lot from the place, especially with processing, so I try to give back when possible.

>>4352295
I just installed darktable. High DPI support was broken out of the box, and it crashed importing 36 raws.

Let's not try that again.
>I have fun being positive
Learn to enjoy the anger.

>>4352298
At least you tried though, that's the important part.
It can be fun being angry, but you've ended up making me feel more sad (for you) than angry. Seems silly to have any anger towards someone like you. Been a good example of how you let anger control yourself, don't need to let anger control me too.

>>4352312
>Me before realizing that happiness and logic are lies: poor, only a photographer, no accomplishments, mostly smoke weed, constantly afraid of being robbed, don't obey speed limits, like, philosophy, man
>me after realizing that hatred and anger make the world go 'round: photographer and glowie, signed more NDAs than I have fingers, extremely satisfying life of no drugs, only conquest of new heights, purposefully drive under the speed limit, making money independent of any employment or service because I believe that the fear based money transfer system called the stock market is a very good thing
Learn to enjoy the anger and it will become the great happiness you have ever known

You can start by picking your least favorite camera and throwing it off a bridge
RIP in pieces, rebel t6i

File: Dpp4Main_fjtWis8Lbv.jpg (898 KB, 2559x1392)

898 KB JPG

>>4351614
There's been mention of it in this topic, but no one has actually suggested it to you to achieve what you're asking for.

>I just want the RAW to have the base look as the jpg so I can improve on it
Download Digital Photo Professional, it's the free official editing software from Canon. It will load your raw with the picture style you shot with as the starting point, including custom ones. You can also switch to other default/custom picture styles for your starting point if you didn't like what you used in the moment.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4352295
How fucking dare someone ask for genuine help on this board, I know right. Forget these faggots here solely for the purpose of being hateful cunts. OP had an issue and wanted straight advice on the matter, but everyone here would rather take the chance to bitch and moan instead of idk, having a discussion on a discussion board. I swear some assholes forget this is a blue board sometimes.
>>4352321
>Threw his t6i off a bridge
I would have hammered it in, and recorded it in slow-mo but well done regardless.
>>4352504
I kind of think OP wanted to know the inner workings and get a better understanding of what exactly was being done to convert a RAW into a given result. Like, he wanted the knowledge of specific tools not just a way to copy other shit. But you're right, DPP is the easy way to get a duplicate yourself. I know generally JPEGs just crank saturation and contrast by default; depends on the brand ofc but you get what I mean.

>>4352251
>GNU has achieved is all but killing a better OS (Actual UNIX),
HP UX died because it was shit, AIX was always bound to IBM HW plats, solaris was run by idiots (I mean management, not engineers) and got bought out anyway. It's alive too, check oxide.
>plan 9
meme mouse chords, meme initial loicense, meme APIs that put global state spread between dozen non-synced endpoints (=files)
The only two things Linux killed was embedded Windows (android took over here), and Windows Server (duh). Hopefully Valve will kill windows gaming finally.
I still agree that DT devs are morons.

>>4352260
>>4352280
Anon, the one you're arguing with has so much suppressed hatred I'm surprised they didn't shoot a school yet. Don't be their unpaid therapist.
But yes, their edit (>>4351795) is the best in the thread.
>>4352261
>windows 2000
that was just the best desktop environment at the date.
Also C and and all Unixen not named QNX suck. QNX does too but for different reasons.
>>4352262
finally constructive arguments, not thinly veiled vents.
>>4352511
>I swear some assholes forget this is a blue board sometimes.
2016 happened and it was all downhill ever since

File: best.jpg (2.4 MB, 2000x2919)

2.4 MB JPG

>>4352504
DPP has already be suggested to OP, here and in other threads. They want to know how to get there, without having to rely on using DPP.
>>4352517
Yup, these two surely look the most identical in the thread. Or was the prompt to ignore OP entirely and process however you want?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4351844
>>4351845
>(1.08 MB, 1000x653)
Why

>>4352564
Probably 90 jpeg compression instead of 80 i.e. skill issue

>>4352565
1000 pixels... can't even see anything on a picture so tiny

>>4352547
>Or was the prompt to ignore OP entirely and process however you want?
the virgin doing what op says (submissive sissy)
the chad doing better (alpha male)

>>4352565
I have posted 20 whole MP at 90% several times
88% is more consistently below 5MB

>>4352775
And it looked awful m43chan

>>4351844
>>4351845
Based Ken Rockwell enjoyer

File: IMG_0118.jpg (2.78 MB, 1999x1334)

2.78 MB JPG

>>4351612
Honest feedback on the color and color harmonies to this image?
Does it seems too piss yellow?

Here was the inteded jpg (b&w) and here is the raw.
https://filebin.net/sem4ke54u8wrrz2y

My goal now was to make the Raw colorful

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Photographer	Adrian J.
Lens Size	70.00 - 200.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 A025
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:30 20:20:35
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Lens Aperture	f/9.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1334
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Unknown
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	180
Color Matrix	33

File: IMG_0118.jpg (2.14 MB, 3600x2400)

2.14 MB JPG

>>4354312

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Photographer	Adrian J.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3600
Image Height	2400
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.86 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Image Width	3600
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_0053_small.jpg (57 KB, 640x427)

57 KB JPG

>>4351614

lets see if my ban has been lifted

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
ISO Speed Rating	100
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: IMG_0118_small.jpg (44 KB, 640x427)

44 KB JPG

>>4354312

how colorfull

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
ISO Speed Rating	160
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4351614
can you reupload the raw?
seeing all these people fail at recreating the jpeg look has me really curious now

File: 1725042332040125.jpg (33 KB, 227x149)

33 KB JPG

>>4354312
When you see this halo, you know that you've been pushing hsl sliders too hard. They're there for minor, fast adjustments. You should be doing major colour gradings with other tools.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Looking into demosaicing techniques I've done some light reading on the different types, but I've found wildly different takes depending on what I read. My general understanding is that:
>Bilinear
Fast, common, smooths edges by default
>VHD
Slower, priority on edge sharpness, more noise
But then there's a bunch of other techniques based on VHD that kind of sort of maybe do similar yet slightly different shit. Plus probably some I am unaware of. Is it as simple as just trying a few and eyeballing what comes out better, or is there some kind of method to this madness I am not seeing yet?

>>4354942
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1077314206002104

>>4354942
just leave whatever on default and you'll be fine 99% of time
this is another missing the forest for the trees avenue of distraction

>>4354505
A mention to the chad who just said "the jpeg looks like shit" and did his own thing

>>4354942

if you look Jenni Helander white paper you will find some evaluation of interpolation types, then you experiment with interesting ones and choose what you find favorable

half size is my favorite when i am not using my 2.7Mpix

>>4355049
>>4355141
Fair enough. Figured I was over complicating it. I couldn't find any difference even just testing those two types on a range of photos

File: so_good.jpg (31 KB, 659x609)

31 KB JPG

>>4355026
Oh sick, a peer reviewed academic paper. You sir a god among mortals.

>>4354522
Is that some weird kind of posterization?

>>4355302
its what happens when you adjust colors poorly

>>4355315
Colour channel clipping?

>>4354505
Yes, sry I was banned for the past 5 days for posting on /tv/

Here is the new link:
https://filebin.net/454pe2pgu148h39x

>>4355450
Their tranny janny still triggered over the acolyte being cancelled? Lol

>>4355063
I don't like radioactive green plants