Hey, my name is Jason Polak and I'm a wildlife photographer and writer. This channel is an even combination of wildlife and photography. The best of both worlds.
"For example, Look at this random set of option in the LAB area.......hhmm" Thanks for the insight...I have no idea what the problem is when you don't discuss it.
I assume your post is sarcastic. However, in my opinion, it is self-edvident that it is a user interface nightmare. And that's enough for me. No need to discuss it. Thanks.
On wide fh25 equals to 28mm f/18.5, while this iPhone equals to 29mm f/16 (I count FOV & DOF equivalence). yep it has 28.9842 mm lens, not 28. For light gathering that's f/3.3 vs f/2.2. So despite the smaller sensor iPhone has slightly shallower DOF and brighter optics. Comparison on longer lengths won't be fair but you didn't do that, good. Did you try shooting RAW on this iPhone or using manual settings to match ISO/shutter speed of fh25? There are free apps like "Shoot" (overly simplistic, does RAW shooting all params - auto), "RAW Camera" (allows full manual control and you can still shoot jpeg) or paid apps like "ProCam" (neater UI but does same job as "RAW Camera"). By at least matching ISO/shutter speed with fh25 pictures you'll get more adequate comparison. Also if could be helpful to compare how both cameras perform in good light, outdoors for example. And how they handle high dynamic range scenes (bright skies & deep shadows).
Thank you very much for your input. I wasn't sure this video would get any attention so I made a bit of a quick comparison, but I think your suggestions are awesome and I will incorporate some of your suggestions into future comparisons! Also, I didn't try Raw on the iPhone since I just wanted to compare stock features, and I figured that was fair since the Panasonic doesn't have Raw either.
Useless "Composite Module"? No import images allowed!: Is the "overlay/composite" new module in DT4.8 made useless intentionally? How is it possible that the "Watermark Module" is much more "powerful" for overlaying images/ textures (by means of allowing the importing from a (any) folder in my computer), than the explicitly design for "Composite" Module, that only let (force) you to use (only) images already available in the "darkroom" of DT??
@@WildEarthPhotoI would love to composite textures and other images as effects (frames, light leaks, etc.). I've addressed these limitations by creating an extensive list of presets without previews, making it a guessing game every time I want to apply an effect.
Hey, I hope you enjoyed the video! If you guys want an actual review of the FH-25 rather than just this comparison, and you want to see some real-world sample images, check out my written review: jpolak.org/photo/retro-review-panasonic-dmc-fh25-dmc-fs35/
The sort order of the modules corresponds to the order in which the modules are applied in the pixelpipe. That is fixed and cannot be changed since that order is crafted to get the highest image quality. It's good to know the order because it can help you understand how modules work in conjunction.
I am using both and I'm beginning to prefer RawTherapee over Darktable. RT gives me good results in less than 10% of the time I would need in DT. In RT, the initial starting point matches the out-of-camera jpeg quite well, it gives me those "Nikon colors" that I love by default. In DT, the colors and the contrast are way off by default and I have to take numerous steps to make the image look how I (and Nikon) prefer it to look and even then the colors are not accurate. It's simply too many steps that I have to repeat for every image. Also DT's demosaicing algorithm produces aliasing in places where RT's algorithm does not. To make matters worse, DT has too much redundancy. There are a dozen ways to adjust the same thing, it really neads a cleanup. For me, RT gives me the results that I want very quickly and DT was just never quite satisfactory.
I agree, however I think AI still has a place in certain areas of photography, such as in my case: astrophotography. While we have come a very long way in noise reduction and restoring lost/damaged data, AI just does it better. The end result of programs such as NoiseXTerminator or BlurXTerminator for Pixinsight is miles above anything an amateur can do, and it can do it in a matter of seconds or minutes. As an example, background extraction is such a complicated topic involving high level statistical concepts and calculations, I barely understand the terminology used, yet alone how it's utilised. But with AI, someone can pay the 60 $ for the software, hit apply, and get a result in a matter of seconds, while I need several hours to fine tune my images with trial and error.
Well, personally I'd rather see someone's fine-tuned result than an image that was augmented with AI. Especially in astrophotography, where the chances are very HIGH that an enhanced image will involve a nontrivial amount of augmentation. I also think firmly that it will be a very boring world indeed if everyone can output "amazing" astro images with the push of a button. I wonder then how much is really the person and how much is the machine? I really do think there is a serious dark side to democratization of creation of anything. Of course, I am all for some ease in the process. I don't want to give up autofocus, for example. But the general direction AI is heading in is that it allows people to make things without even a glimmer of an understanding of how things work, and that in my view dissolves the ability of the art to transmit personality and soul. In other words: there is a happy medium between TOO easy and TOO hard, and AI goes too far into the TOO easy category. Never mind the larger implications of AI.
The only thing I miss from lightroom is the auto-panorama stack mode, I switched to mint and to darktable for about a month now....and so far that is the only thing I miss. But yes Down with Adobe and spying Windows.
I agree -- a panorama mode would be awesome. I use a free one on MacOS called mini panorama stitcher that can do up to 5 images, which is more than good enough for me. Hugin works alright too, but one in Raw would be sweet.
AI is here to stay. It will become part of your camera sensor in the end. It will eventually improve on things like lens imperfections etc in camera at the very least. It will offer assistance when shooting in manual mode because it will understand what you are trying to achieve in the specific situation. It already is used for noise reduction and auto focusing. I suppose those aspects are all good. What I don’t like is things like replacing skies, putting in objects and removing others… that is no longer photography, it is visual art - maybe. And that belongs in GIMP or whatever, not your Raw converter. I am very happy with DT, and I think it has excellent noise reduction features
AI may or may not be here to stay. It depends on whether civilization survives in the next decades. I am thinking that it won't. In any case, yes, in some cases you can't avoid it. However, I wil turn off as many features of it as I can, especially if it is trying to "understand" something. Of course, when it is used with noise reduction, it's more like dumb machine learning rather than the creative component as you say. Nevertheless, I don't even use it for that, even though I could theoretically, as I have access to such software.
I prefer not to support AI at all if I can help it. Therefore I still attempt to minimize my AI usage. And I still prefer images where no AI has been used in the actually editing process.
@@WildEarthPhoto I agree. I don't mind some AI for noise reduction and subject selection but not for other editing. We each have out limits to what we will accept.
Yes, you can do it, and indeed, you will have to use the framing module also to preserve crops since extend canvas uncropps. But it will take doing some simple arithmetic to get the borders right. It's much better to use another program to do that.
Indeed. And I am still trying to get rid of all the Adobe trash on my computer that was there when I wanted to test out Lightroom recently. Hope they go bankrupt.
Sign up for our darktable course for beginners: www.udemy.com/course/darktable-essentials/?referralCode=82ECED1844601E7119DC Also available in Brazilian Portuguese: Inscreva-se: www.udemy.com/course/darktable-essencial/?referralCode=F60361140FBB7765EB02
@@WildEarthPhoto Sure, I agree with you, it's not as good as a strictly before/after but very good for comparing before/after in your history, and very good if you make snapshots.
A major con of Darktable enabling each module adds the effect, so have to adjust it each time. Also it doesn't read the embedded camera profile. so all pictures will look wrong from the start, so lots of work to get it done. 'What am I doing wrong? Maybe I have to enable all modules, and set all to a neutral setting so they actually don't do anything. and then save the layout. If it's possible. But depending on the picture, some settings have to be adjusted just for the picture to look somewhat normal, as it looks way too dark, contrasty. So even if I were to save it maybe I would need to still edit other photos more. Some photos I shot are almost perfect just need minor tweaks but in Darktable I have to do a massive edit to make it look as it does out of the camera. This processes makes no sense. But maybe I'm missing something. Looks like I have to enable Adobe RGB then edit, as lens correction enables Adobe RGB without enabling it. But once I've went trough long battle trough the modules, results are good. But instead of a simle tweak it's a massive edit. I will look into this further to see if I can make it usable for me.
@@WildEarthPhoto Just enabling a module changes the image as it has adjustments already made, all adjustments are to insane level, I have to turn tweak it. it makes simple editing harder as I can't just do a simple adjustment I have to adjust almost every slider there is. And as different photos look differently, like a sunny photo, looks too dark with harsh shadows, crazy shadows, blacks. And a darker pic with shadows, looks way too dark and flat. So if this would mean I would have to save each module presets to suit those images I guess. this would be a mess to deal with if I would have many different sceneries. I simply want the image to be the standard camera profile that's embedded in the raw file. I haven't figured out a way to do this. Imagine if someone went crazy with all sliders, and you would have to correct it. that's what I have to do. While Lightroom Classic uses Camera ST profile. Darktable doesn't seem to read any profile at all just read the ARW file and make it's own crazy image. I read that Darktable works in RGB, but for some reason it starts off as a crazy image, and enabling lens correction makes it look like Adobe RGB, seems like a bug. I want to avoid having to use almost most of the modules just to do one simple adjustment, as Darktable ruins the image, at least for me with ARW. nothing makes sense, nor that I have to adjust every slider in every module I enable.also seems hard to set them to 0. I will come back to it. and see what's possible. Once I go trough all of the hassle I get good results. I saved some modules with presets. I experienced weird bugs with magenta infestation, if I used Standard color prefix, but when I changed it to RGB or enabled lens correction it was gone. Other modules did it too. I seem to have sorted that. Just keep it in Adobe RGB.
@@WildEarthPhoto But enabling Adobe RGB makes some images super dark. But sometimes with some images or it happens randomly I'm not sure, but enabling lens correction basically turns on Adobe RGB without doing it. Maybe I have to reinstall it. Standard color prefix is overly flat, and not what the embedded Camera ST profile is. If conditions are good, minimal editing would be needed. Which is not cases in Darktable, so no decent starting point.. but Lightroom uses it, but not tested other software yet. Rawtherapee uses this profile. so looks fine so I can do the fine adjustments on those pics that need it. But in Darktable I have to use many modules. The software seems to be buggy making things inconsistent. Which version do you use? I'm currently testing 4.6.1. I can't make sense of why it enables Adobe RGB look when enabling Lens correction, sometimes and sometimes not, maybe it depends on the picture. so it darkens the image, so I have to correct that. Adobe RGB, sRGB make darker areas and shadows almost completely black. If I leave it in standard color matrix if it's a bright image I can just tweak some sliders make it more colorful and blacks blacker. But when Darktable decides to make image super dark, I have to tweak the shadows. and when original image looks too falt I have to make it look colorful. One picture is just dark and have to brighten it up, do minor tweaks in Lightroom, but in Darktable, it's flat. I'm not sure what to do. I will try to find a solution.
A weird thing with Rawtherapee I noticed is there's a magenta fringing at trees when there's actually not one, I zoom in there's nothing. But this was after de-fringing it, there was minor fringing, but for some reason after it shows massive fringing, which is actually not there. But it's only on with images with trees with sky behind it. But I usually just zoomed in never been a massive issue, but yes not idea.
I did some testing with Sony ARW. I see Rawtherapee upscales and display a wider image, it adds few pixels to the side, making the picture wider, so you actually get a wider image than Darktable, Lightroom. The image is not stretched out, but actually you see more of what the sensor/camera captured. Make sure to use the latest version of Rawtherapee if you have a Sony camera, or right side pixels will be stretched. This has been fixed in 5.10. Rawtherrapee works well with Sony ARW files now. But none of them offer the embedded profiles from the ARW file, sony has six of them. But Rawtherapee uses the standard profile, Camera ST as is shown in Lightroom but Rawtherapee doesn't show the name. And can't select a different profile. But Darktable doesn't show a good starting point at all, no matter what I do. it's completely useless. Standard color matrix shows pale image, Adobe ARGB shows oversaturated, overexposed, over contrasted image. I stil lahven't figured out how to have decent starting point. Also some bugs, so turning on lens correction in Standard color matrix makes highlights magenta, switching it fixes it. same with other color features. I don't know if it's only with ARW files. A big plus forr me with Darktable is the map uses Open Street Map, so I can accurately place the photos on the map, as it shows trails and objects I can't see in Google Satellite image in Lightroom. So can place the pic on a specific spot on a trail. Rawtherapee doesn't have a map. The Lightroom map is useless if it's not pictures from a street, if it's in the forest on some trail, I had to use Geosetter to solve it. But In Darktable I don't have to as it has OSM. And I contribute to OSM so my local area is very accurate.
I opted for the Alu version as I wanted something that could handle a hard impact As sometimes I take it with me on a mountain bike, but usually only on shorter rides, due to my back problems, added weight. but if I'm not riding long and my back is not in trouble and nothing gnarly it's fine. Which hasn't happen yet. I got mine on sale, got a great deal. I mostly used the tripod indoor. The hook holds a backpack well.
2:27 This phone holder is useless, it will likely fail after few uses, mine did the phone fell off, but I caught it, but the plastic part at the bottom failed at the pivot. But no logner an issue for me as I have an actual camera now.Another thing to note is the included tool is is easy to lose. I lost mine. But I should've secured it with a string.
I tested the latest version of Darktable today, it now displays and exports ARW files correctly, doesn't downscale them. But there's a bug where enabling lens correction a color calibration, color contrast, color balance, lut 3d adds magenta to the highlights. So Darktable is useless for me with pictures with bright highlights. Only good in darker more even scenes. I've reported this issue.I've not tested previous version. And forgot which version the resolution issue was in.
Quite a strange bug indeed. And there's no magenta without color calibration activated? Someone mentioned that the features of color calibration will be worked into the white balance module ... maybe that will fix it. I do think one of darktable's main weaknesses is that it has a few color bugs here and there, though Adobe and Capture one have a few of those also.
2:12 Interesting, I've not experienced this issue.But when I used Rawtherapee my photos were mostly JPG and some were DNG. But looked the same in editing page as it did after the edit. but So did Sony ARW when I tried it, but back then it was issues with right pixels being stretched. But I see the image is slightly wider. But has been fixed, but ARW files are still being upscaled, but look correct, but exported image will be larger than it should be, Darktable did the opposite last year, it downscaled it massively. But it's been fixed. I just tested it today.
@@WildEarthPhoto But I see there are some other issues.I see the standard color matrix, makes lens correction and several other settings ad magenta on highlights, but switching color matrix solves it. Still trying to figure out how to use embedded Sony luts some times those are helpful making editing quicker, but there doesn't seem to be an option for it in Darktable yet. Also the Color profiles all look off. IF I go for RGB it looks someone tool exposure and contrast adjustments to max. DO you know if Darktable displays my calibrated screen color profile by default or do I have to enable that somewhere like in Rawtherapee? None of the profiles match what I get out of the camera viewed in other software. Sony ARW has 6 profiles for various situations. in some cases switching profile saves lots of editing. Camera FL(blows out highlights), Camera PT, Camera NT(neutral, makes colours pale), Camera ST(standard), Camera SH, Camera VV(vivid). I also don't see a way to do it in Rawtherapee. but if I just time some more time I can get good results anyway. But the Ddarrktable profiles look crazy with ARW at least. RGB is super contrasty. Standard color matrix is pale, lacks colour, and blacks are too bright. I see turning on Tone Equalizer or RGB Primates makes it look like RGB mode without turning it on. No matter what I do it's a battle just trying to get it to a good starting point. Seems like I have to switch from Standard matrix or turning on one adjustment make it look Adobe RGB
@@WildEarthPhoto I will watch some more videos on Darktable. but so far it seems like a hassle to get the image to get to as good starting point as Camera St(standard) embedded profile. Which Lightroom displays as default.Rawtherapee does too, but doesn't show other options, just embedded.
@@WildEarthPhoto True I will continue to keep an eye on the differeny editors. None are perfect. The slowdown and Lightroom making pc go crazy and slow, photoshop even says I ran out of memory, I got a 3090🤦might need to reinstall or go back to previous version as it keeps resetting user interface to absurd positions, hiding the layers. So far Rawtherapy seems to work best now. But will try to figure out what's wrong with Darktable in my case. Maybe it's bugs plus not proper compability with ARW. I don't know what's going on. But nothing makes sense. I will come back to Darktable at a late point. Maybe experiment some more at a later stage. But so far seems to be useless. Do you have any ideas? Some pics look flat, and nothing like they should put of the camera. And swapping input profiles make it crazy. Srgb makes re pink, and dark areas very black, even trees ge black leads, Adobe rgb does tha plus shadows even blacker. P3 makes all shadows pitch black. I see Darktable should automatically use default color profile of monitor se tin windows. But it looks way off. Input sRGB or Adobe RGB with working profile linear rec709 RGB reds look the best, but shadows and dark areas are super dark. I see if I keep it all original but enable lens correction itbdarkensnthebinageband makes red look red, basically switches it to Adobe RGB. But seems like if I enable Adobe rgb then enable the mofelues I want to adjust then I have to adjust them to make it look normal. But haven't found a way to have a good starting point. As it doesn't use the embedded standard profile from the raw file. Or am I missing something. Also weird enabling modules adds crazy settings I have to adjust. So I have to decrazyfy it. So mot work than I want to deal with. But managed to do a edit tha looked ok, but not amazing so will test further.
A big win for Darktable is Open Street Map, so I can accurately place the photos on the map. In Lightroom Classic I can't do as good of a job, as it uses Google Satellite. So I had to improve that in Geosetter if I couldn't place the photo accurately enough. This is especially hard if taking photos in a forest, on a trail or a new road, street that don't show up on satellite image. Also I've improved the OSM locally, so it's very accurate. But it had issues with Sony ARW files, it did not use correct image size, nor export it correctly last year, so I did not test it further at it exported a much smaller image, but this has been fixed. I will definitely test Darktable more. I've used Rawtherapee in the past but it doesn't have a map feature. One thing Lightroom Classic has that's a nice selling point is possibility to upload to Flickr via Lightroom Classic, and If I did a mistake with tags, description, geotagging, or edit, I can easily fix it and update the already uploaded pic without it being deleted or uploaded as a second picture.A feature I like in Lightroom classic is I can select the sky and correct the sky. without using Photoshop or gimp and use masks and long pushing to mask it properly. I will look into alternatives and see if it's possible in other software. Also uploading to Flickr directly is neat.
16:48 The LSP Parametric Equalizer VST real time plugin works with Audacity. Must have. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TfpJPsiouuU.html
That is my unscientific conclusion also. Now what about the options under LMMSE? 3xmedian etc. I know you want to..... I usually choose 3 x median and no color smoothing etc
Difference #6 darktable has a map mode to manually geotag images and a module to add .gpx files to automatically geotag images, RawTherapee has neither of them.
I could. Not sure if I will. These sorts of videos barely get any hits or attention and it's a fair amount of work to make them as well, so there's not much reward in it of any kind.
While I am also worried about some of influences on art and society, the amount of misconception in this video is a little baffling. It's hard to find where to start. Just the definition of art and what "AI" represents seems very subjective. It certainly would make for an interesting real life debate. Not really what a comment box is for though.
Well, what "art" is has always been subjective. However, I wouldn't call it a misconception, it's my opinion. My opinion is often different than what the mainstream is, but it's certainly not a meek "on the fence" position like that of some people. For instance, I reject outright that technology is just a tool that we can choose to use as we please. I would say that that sort of position is far more of a misconception than anything I have said.
@@WildEarthPhoto Rejecting "that technology" is what I mean in terms of misconception. Where do you draw the line of what technology you mean? What is the bad "AI" and what machine learning is OK to use. None? Then stop using a lot of things. In the end it's all statistics and much of this has existed for quite a while. It's just much more accessible now. One could also argue everything in art is a derivative based on consumed experiences. So how is generative AI different? (Not my position - but one could argue) I am not sure your stance is just for the clicks, but if feels a little more complex than your portrayal IMO. As said, I do share you pessimism of what some of it might bring to society and art. I just find the line you draw a little odd. Things in life are rarely that pure and have their shades of grey. Anyway - already more than I wanted to write as comment :) Always good to question things. I leave it at that.
Where do I draw the line? Well that's a detailed discussion -- but there is a meaningful line to be drawn, just as the Amish do it. They consider each technology individually. For example, for me, ChatGPT, and all generative AI should be destroyed. My stance has nothing to do with clicks. None of my anti-tech stuff ever becomes popular. NOR do I want it to be popular. And of course, I write in more detail elsewhere. My only goal is to convince a few that are willing to take action against certain modern technologies. I don't want to gain the attention of people who are on the fence or not serious about stopping these technologies -- they are of not much help. Regarding all art being derivative -- it's not the derivative part that matters, but the fact that art for me is about effective communication of a person's emotions. Whether it's derivative is not the problem. The fact that AI does not represent any human position is. I categorically reject it just based on that, but of course there are other reasons.
