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
Hi! Great video and fantastic pictures! This is a little off topic and I'm not trying to accuse anyone or make them feel guilty but please try to raise awarness of Aurélien Pierre who is a developer for the program. I think and hope that long time users are willing to support his work if they knew about it. He's here on youtube making very in depth videos about the modules. He's also on Liberapay where it's possible to donate for his time to work on DT. At the moment we are only 102 people donating. I know the program is free but I feel that I want to contribute to this fantastic open source program DT is and the amazing job Aurélien does.
@@sunesnigel Thanks for the message. Does Aurelien even work on Darktable any more or is he only working on his own fork, Ansel? (Which seems to have removed a lot of the modules I use...). I looked at Ansel but I couldn't find a MacOS version of it so I'm afraid I don't know much about the work.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Well it seems I'm very outdated! I've completley missed the Ansel fork! I have no idea if he still works on DT, I'm having a hard time finding info about DT development. It's been a while since he posted anything on social media. I'll let you know if I find anything.
@@JasonPolakPhotography I run Linux so I will try Ansel. Considering the means it's extremly impressive what they've been able to turn DT into. There is some activity on the Ansel webbpage and it seems Aurelien been putting in a lot of work for very little money.
I might look at Darktable thoroughly now. I installed it a few months back and played with it, but being used to Lightroom it felt a bit scary, so I uninstalled it. Listening to you makes me consider this software again....and yes, I fully agree with you on your take on AI.....I seriously hate it too!
I think it's sort of what you're used to. I tried Lightroom a few years after using darktable and found it unintuitive too. So just give it some time and you might like it.
Darktable can indeed look a bit scary if you are not used to it. My trick not to get lost was to create a custom tab with the modules I'm using for most of the images. What also helps is to find reasonable default settings for those modules and create a style from them. I apply this style to all images after import. That serves as a good starting point for most of them so that I can only apply specific tweaks where needed.
fully agree :) never invested in adobe system, just LR on my phone. I was using Marketable for my IR photos and soon after a loooooong learning curve, I started liking it more and more and use it now for my norma photos too
My one issue with darktable is the UI. Where things that should take 1 click end up taking 3 or 4. This adds up over time and I don't have the patience for it. There's a reason LR is king. It's just fast to work with. If they can streamline the UI, sure. I tried it a year ago, and I just don't have the patience for clicking through endless menus just to accomplish what I could in LR in one click.
Point 3 (open source) may not seem relevant to most users but for me it's currently essential since I switched to a camera which is not supported yet (and cannot be until there will be a libraw release or snapshot with support). So I've been using a patched version of both libraw and darktable since February and don't have to wait.
I can't really agree with the AI argument.. sure it has the potential to infringe on creativity, but it offers many features that are simply time savers. Like the oppurtinity to perfectly auto mask my images very fast. It's just a time saver, i did the same thing before AI features came, just a bit worse (no perfect edges in lightroom, just radial or brush masking) and it took me a lot longer and wasn't able to sync it across similar images. I will try darktable nevertheless. I would like them to bring auto masking capabilities with option to sync.
I simply do not believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. The benefit you receive from auto-masking is nothing compared to the devastation that AI will bring upon humanity. The comment box is too small to contain my reasoning but I wrote an intro article here: medium.com/@jpolak/how-ai-will-destroy-us-dc58ea9dfe30 I, on the other hand, hope auto-masking never comes to darktable.
I'm not against AI, but I don't do AI generated images. But what I do is take photos of real things and make them look as realistic as possible. So I use features that help me do that. I don't use AI really, only the sky mask in Lightroom, some might consider this AI some might not. Object mask is nice too, it's not perfect, but helpful for sure. But I don't often need it. but when I do it's nice. But I've tested these features and was not impressed. For me sky mask in Lightroom is nice, it's quick and works well. Other AI features in Photoshop and Lightroom are inconsistent, don't work that well, content aware fill works better than the AI method. Or even me doing it manually in Photoshop by cloning.
thanks a lot for the review! looking forward to move to linux and the only thing holding me back was lightroom since i LOVE photography. You have convinced me to go forward, thanks a lot!:)
You are welcome. Don't get discouraged at first because DT IS different. However, if you're having any trouble, you can come back and tell me what the trouble is and I will try and make a video here for you.
I try to use it from time to time - but I usually have the same hiccup, reducing noise fast and efficiently, and getting my colors to come out as I want them --- the colors in DT I can probably work out actually so scrap that, so I guess just a good way with working with noise that does not just go and dull the whole image. I will check out another video of yours I can see on the right - as like you, I would like to not have to pay a subscription.
Yes of course. If it's just a matter of rotation, you can right click and drag to draw a straight line and easily straighten a photo. There is also an automatic perspective correction tool that works will with perspective distortion.
You've mentioned this 'realistic preview' in another video too. This is not what I experienced with DT. By default, it displays a simplified rendering which can be very misleading when it comes to contrast and saturation (as it goes for v. 4.8.1). There is an option to see an actual preview as an export-ready picture but this is something one needs to activate manually. Worth noting, I think. Still, this is of course very useful option to have. DT is a brilliant piece of software but for an amateur like me, it feels at times overengineered and difficult to use. I may be biased by a couple of years of using RT but it is way easier and faster for me to achieve the expected effect there than in DT, even if in DT the final effect might be slightly better after all.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking about what the image looks like in the darkroom mode, not the lighttable mode (which does have that feature you are talking about). In darktable, the darkroom mode view is 100% identical to the exported JPEG -- at least side by side, I really cannot notice the difference. That is what I meant, because in RT, the "darkroom" (editing) mode is significantly different than the export mode, and this can't be changed.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Nope, I'm talking about darkroom. There is a button at the bottom. It sits between colour assessment and RAW clipping checkers. When you hover over it the pop-up windows tell 'toggle high-quality processing'. But... I can't find a description of this module in v 4.8. manual. This could be something added in 4.8.1 and previously it was like you say. However, in the release I have installed, I have to toggle this button to have what you describe. By default, darkroom displays a fast render for me. Anyway, this minor thing - you just need to toggle one button. I have more problems with what the Filmic module does with out-of-gamut colours. It seems until you compress them together with highlights, Filmic substitutes those pixels with white, such as they would be clipped in luminance. But they are not and as soon as I turn Filmic off the colours are back (of course some areas of the pictures go clipped in luminance then, but those I'm talking about return their colours). I don't find a way to go over it. The funny thing, even with Filmic on, those areas get some of their colours back when exporting to 16-bit TIF but they don't if exporting to jpg. So until I won't find a better solution, I export always to TIF and then I change colour space and export to jpg in Krita. RT might be less sophisticated overall, but it doesn't create such problems for me. Still, I really like some features of DT and I'd like to learn how to use it properly. But I have struggled so far.
Excellent presentation. Precise and covered all key points that a new user looks for, like me. Totally disgusted by Adobe and it's highway robbery, especially now I am on tight pension income, but want to pursue my hobby.
Thank you very much. Darktable IS different, and works different than Adobe. But it's no worse. Some people get shocked by the differences and think it's not as good, but I remember once I tried Lightroom. That was after I was using darktable for a while. And, I had a very hard time using it. So I think it's mainly what you started with first. So, if it looks different, don't give up and you'll get it! Darktable is free and I use it as a professional so I can say it does almost everything that a photographer could want.
Very well put, Jason. I am in sync with all your views about Darktable, not least that AI is destructive when set to substitute creativity and personal decisions. I use DxO PureRAW 2, which I believe is AI supported, so it represents the limit for my accept of AI. I hope more good photographers will overcome their fear and dive into this non commercial and very good software. A few minor bugs may exist, but they are also all over the most expensive raw managers. I have tried a fair number, so I know, and as you say - it's way easier to get qualified help with Darktable than with any other software. Keep up with your Darktable related videos here, please. Thank you.
Thank you very much and indeed, AI should not start guiding us on image-editing decisions. It's true that noise-reduction AI doesn't do anything creative and so isn't the same as some of the other more drastic AI applications. More videos are definitely forthcoming! Cheers.
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.
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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.
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.
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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.
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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.
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.
My perpetual LR license is dead now as I moved to a new computer, no way to move it, so I'm deciding whether DT can replace it or should I go with LR subscription from now on. I installed DT, but so far I wasn't very happy with it, but perhaps because of having no prior experience. To me UI seems to be not well thought through, not intuitive, and rather kludgy, so I have to watch videos just to figure out the basics. What I need is this. First, I'm using DXO PR3 to convert raw files to dng. I don't need DT to do the conversion. There is nothing as good as DXO doing demosaicing, noise reduction, and optical corrections. What I need DT to do is to import DNG and put them into folders with the dates in EXIF, like LR does. So far, I didn't find how to do that in DT. The other thing I need to find out how to edit in batches. I tried selecting multiple images, but DT doesn't want to edit them in lockstep. Is that possible? Finally I need to export selected images as pdf slideshow. I didn't find that in DT either.
Editing in batches is possible with the copy/paste history stack. You edit one and then copy the history stack (right sidebar) and paste it to other images. DT is also not a Lightroom clone. It works differently than LR. To be honest after using DT first and then trying LR, LR seems strange and disorganized to me...so I think it's just a matter of what you used first. But in all, it seems like you want more of an LR clone. DT does not have the same sort of features that LR does, and thus, DT is simply not the program for you.
@@JasonPolakPhotography I found copy/paste, not really as convenient as synced editing. But the bigger problem it keeps screwing up the white balance and I still don't know how to make it apply my edits without touching white balance.
@rthPhoto maybe you should try it. The white balance is totally screwed in DT and more than one module affects it, and nothing I found would keep the "as shot" WB through copy/paste.
I think if you only select modules after the demosaic step and of course don't select white balance, you can't affect the white balance (except through other modules you purposely turned on like color correction).
Lens profiles exist but that table doesn't show which ones. But not many exist for Pentax lens corrections. I think only 3 profiles exist for Pentax. So if you've got a lens with a lot of distortion, you would not be able to correct it.
I totally agree with the fact that AI spoils photography, music and video production. Creative tasks are the fun part for us human beings. Why in hell would we want to delegate that to a machine?
Most people don't want to do this delegation. Only corporations, businesses, and greedy people want to do so because they want to squeeze every last dollar in the shortest timespan possible. Techies and programmers also enjoy it because it means they can create something without learning how to do art and of course they like the technology they create because it makes them richer.
How is it an essential creative process to draw a mask over a subject or object? I think it helps to enhance creative decisions by not being such a technical hurdle. I want that object 1/3 stop brighter? click, done. This one bit less contrast? click, done. Before you had to take forever to draw masks over things. I kind of don't see the point you try to make.. sure, the generative things can be a bit too much but auto masking for me personally was just a massive timesaver, i would have edited the images without the tools the exact same way, just would take me 3 times longer because i cant sync local image adjustments across pictures in a similar setting.
I with you and all points expect AI. Here's my stance on it though. I'm totally against artificially generated photos however I think there is a place for in it photography and editing that can benefit everyone. AI can help speed up a lot of the tedious processes when it comes to photo editing. For example if you want to mask quickly mask out your subject from a complex background. AI will save you hours for work even if you still finetune that mask manually after. Even in cameras. Sony for example has an AI chip in the A6700 that has incredible subject recognition. Many times you only have moments to land a shot and it means the difference get stack sharp focus or struggling to shoot through those pesky branches as that rare bird flies off.
Of course AI can make things easier. And there will naturally be a place for it simply because people find it makes things easier. I still disagree with it categorically though, because supporting it in one case means supporting it in every case. That's why I'm 100% against AI, because the costs outweigh the benefits to society and even the photographic community.
Yes, you only need to delete them in darktable. The delete (trash) button removes the shot from the database and physically sends it to the trash, just as pressing the delete key would.
00:30 min 50.000 options? - Darktable is powerful. And i agree it give us very high quality output. But often i think it is only for non pros photographer
Yes, I know darktable can't be used by all pros who have a special workflow that depends on some Lightroom thing. Not all pros are dependent on such things....
True. Not many programs do in the Raw development sphere, I'm afraid. You've only got Darktable and Rawtherappee (and their derivatives, Ansel and Art, not sure about the state of those). I do recommend Darktable of course as it's my primary editor but it's certainly not for everyone, just like a manual transmission isn't for everyone. I suggest just trying both and see if one really works for you. Or get a Mac. Haha.
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.
It's amazingly capable but the interface is simply horrible. Fonts are not clear, spacing and layout is dismal... and though it's free, I really could not use something that's so unpleasant to look at.
When I changed from LR about 5 years ago, I found DT was different. Once you understand it, it’s fine. Fonts? Ugly to look at? I have no idea what you are talking about.
A lot of people hate Adobe. Adobe fans often first think it has something to do with the subscription and of course, some people hate the subscription. But the reasons to hate Adobe go far beyond subscription: they support AI, their software is bloated, they install all sorts of weird helper services on your computer, they keep aggressively advertising new features (especially AI features) in existing software, and somehow there is an inexplicable dirty aura whenever any of their apps opens.
AI masking is not bad, nor is it taking away your creativity. It saves you time from having you sit there and try to mask something for 10 minutes. AI removal is also just clone stamp/healing tool on steroids. At least that is how I use it. Instead of cloning like a mad man for 1 hour, I can get the same end result I want in 10 min. It is still what I intended to create in the first place AI upscaling and denoise is also fantastic; especiallt from Topaz. Those are all tools/effects you use already in less efficient ways. But AI adjustments, that automatically start editing, or that starts adding new content, those I dont like either. Same with AI generated images for anything other than just playing around and memes is just insulting to artists everywhere. I hate it, that instagram is filling up with AI images that are then not labeled AI generated....
Using software for AI generative fill or cloning in my mind is a bad thing precisely because it supports those corporations who naturally will take the next step. Moreover, AI-upscaling can introduce artifacts and so can denoising. And it's one step away from using minor generative functions to fill in details, so on those grounds I don't use it. I also don't like the encouragement of efficiency to its logical end. If I have an image that's too noisy, I take less images. Moderation is good in technology and the encouragement of efficiency with AI in my opinion is a bad thing. I don't mind producing less content and people who aim to produce as much as possible are part of the problem.
Your insights and presentation on Darktable are appreciated, but I must express my disagreement regarding your views on AI. AI significantly enhances various aspects of daily life and is unlikely to hinder human creativity. In fact, individuals with expertise can leverage AI to become more productive. For instance, as someone who is not a photographer, I might use AI to generate an image for my job (be it for a blog, website, e-shop, etc.). However, I might not achieve the desired result due to an inaccurate prompt. Conversely, if I communicate my envisioned outcome to you, you could craft a highly descriptive prompt that yields the perfect result. You have the ability to incorporate technical specifications in your prompt that I am unaware of. So, what's the point here? Anyone with expertise can utilize AI to achieve better and faster results, leading to increased productivity
I vehemently disagree with your entire argument, and I don't believe AI enhances any aspect of daily life. Your example of using AI to generate a "photograph" is an example of removing the dependence of people on other people on a massive scale, and leads to wealth concentration in the hands of the most technically skilled. I would never use AI to generate any photos. In practice, it's clear that creatives are being fired and replaced by AI. Moreover, highly skilled people using AI better is only temporary. It will evolve beyond the need of any technical expertise. And yes, you are right that AI might increase productivity, but I see that as a detriment: humanity will use this increased producitivty to increase its consumption, not to be more sustainable. What are we going to be more productive at? Destroying the ecosystem? Technology requires mining and resources, and increased productivity means more mining, more habitat destruction, and distancing ourselves further from the natural world. I see your desire for increased productivity as an artifact from our addition and obsession with efficiency that has made us one of the most destructive organisms ever to exist. No sir, you can keep your productivity and tech-saturated world. It's disgusting and I'll do anything I can to oppose it.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Thank you for your response! I've decided not to continue this discussion as it seems futile given our differing viewpoints. I represent a perspective from those dedicated to enhancing AI experiences for end-users. I'm genuinely pleased that there are people with opinions like yours because they provide valuable feedback on what needs further development. In closing, I'd like to remind you that when humans discovered fire, some used it for beneficial purposes while others did not. However, the existence and utility of fire were not diminished by these differing uses.
@NightDevs: You are an emotional one, aren't you? I didn't erase your answer. All comments on my channel are moderated because there are too many thoughtless ones....and so it takes some days to get the decent ones approved.
Here's a longer response: we don't just have different viewpoints. Your "perspective" for enhancing AI is one of your function/vocation and isn't a moral philosophy regarding the effects of AI on society. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt my opinion has anything to do with enhancing AI, and I hope it won't improve AI, although I suspect people like you will simply find more ways to psychologically manipulate people into believing AI can help them, when in reality it is just another prisoner's dilemma situation of short-term gains for those who benefit against the long-term damages which you haven't seem to have considered. Moreover, your comparison to fire is a rather intellectual weak analogy: different inventions are different. When fire was discovered, people did not have global influence. I am obviously aware of fire, other technological inventions, and their influence on society and one cannot simply reduce the arguments against AI by saying that we'll all be fine because fire was okay. Let me close by asking you to at least consider the sociological implications beyond the benefit for those who can pay.
Your point about AI is totally absurd, it is very helpful, it just depends how we use it not to supidify photography. Not having it is one of the few disadvantages ( and is a big one) that darktable has.
I disagree. If you are looking at AI merely as a tool for photography, then I DO agree with you. Some aspects such as noise reduction aren't harmful in themselves. However, I very much disagree with you because AI is not just about photography. It's a transformational technology that will ultimately make the world worse through wealth concentration to tech companies and put many people out of business. Therefore, while you are correct in a narrow sense, you obviously did not consider the larger implications and you are only concerned with the tiny microcosm of your own photography. The issue is far more subtle that you have presented. I welcome you to consider the more subtle dangers of AI first before writing something without much thought.
Bro when you use the autofocus in your camera you are already using Ai. It's just a tool! (Which can produce good and bad results like anything else). I don't understand the hate.
Sorry to say, but there is a lot more to technology than it just being a tool. If technology were just a tool, we should not discuss it at all because that's where it ends: "just a tool". But we do have to have discussions about the nature of technology, because not all is created equal, including AI. AI is more than just a tool for photography: if that is where it ended, then I would not have much problem with it. But it is far more than that: it is part of a wider social phenomenon to concentrate wealth into the hands of technology companies. Moreover, AI is another step for technology to isolate us and destroy local communities and remove the feeling of being useful in general human populations. It is uncontrollable and will flood the world with artificially generated things. One must distinguish between technology as it is used to relieve some manual labor and AI which is poised to take over creative decisions. There is a distinction there, and the fact that you have failed to make that distinction and distilled your entire reply down to "I don't understand the hate" means you haven't spent more than a couple of minutes thinking about this topic in a most superficial way. The world would be a much better place if there were less thinking like your own about the short-term gains about what you can do with tools and more basic questioning about the larger, long-term social implications.
@@JasonPolakPhotographyYoooo the big picture is not at all under discussion! Ai is of course more than "just a tool". Whether you use a little bit of Ai to support denoising or to better design the suggestions in your search engine is something completely different than Ai which generates images or dominates humanity in the future (there are no limits to imagination). Ai has been around for so long and we use it every day whether we want it or not. You can do so many things with Ai and also just use it as a tool.
@findefuchs. I disagree. The big picture should always be under discussion no matter what we do, and supporting AI in one domain means support for it in others because of the way knowledge propagates. I reject your premise that we can use it as merely a tool without affecting other areas. Smartphones are a similar example: you can use them as you wish for harmless purposes, but just by using them, you support the encroachment of technology in all forms by funding their development. Your perspective is one that concerns only yourself and the world is in dire straights because of your sort of philosophy. However, we should never separate any act away from all its effects, now and into the future. My claim is that we should do whatever we can to oppose AI, even if that means giving up some of the small "benefits" it provides. Moreover, most of the "benefits" provided by AI, including noise reduction, aren't as great as they seem -- but that's a different discussion.
As I said, Ai has existed for so long in so many areas that we don't even notice it and that certainly won't change any time soon. I am also critical of future developments because, as you said, the possibilities will soon be unlimited. But I still think it's ok to use programs and applications that work with Ai, otherwise you'll soon only be able to use pen and paper.
Well, we disagree there. It is true that AI exists in many forms and it is hard to oppose. Nonetheless, if water is entering your house through a flood, surely you'd try to excavate as much as possible to prevent as much damage as possible, even if you can't get rid of all of it? In the same vein, I will refuse to support AI as much as possible, even though stopping it is of course difficult. I turn off AI features when I can, I don't support it as much as I can, and if enough people do the same, we can make it economically infeasible to develop. Ideally, it would be relegated to a few obscure applications. My conclusion is that we should AVOID AI programs as much as possible, especially in the realm of generative/"creative" AI, which is the most harmful. And I would gladly give up technology for pen and paper, if it meant that I could survive and have a simple life that way, and that humanity returned to a more harmonious existence with nature. One of my only motivations for using technology now is so that I can try and have some influence on the world and fund that influence. Perhaps it will be futile, but all we can do is try. So go ahead and use AI programs...though I won't be interested in the result.
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
Hi!
Great video and fantastic pictures!
This is a little off topic and I'm not trying to accuse anyone or make them feel guilty but please try to raise awarness of Aurélien Pierre who is a developer for the program. I think and hope that long time users are willing to support his work if they knew about it. He's here on youtube making very in depth videos about the modules. He's also on Liberapay where it's possible to donate for his time to work on DT. At the moment we are only 102 people donating.
I know the program is free but I feel that I want to contribute to this fantastic open source program DT is and the amazing job Aurélien does.
@@sunesnigel Thanks for the message. Does Aurelien even work on Darktable any more or is he only working on his own fork, Ansel? (Which seems to have removed a lot of the modules I use...). I looked at Ansel but I couldn't find a MacOS version of it so I'm afraid I don't know much about the work.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Well it seems I'm very outdated! I've completley missed the Ansel fork! I have no idea if he still works on DT, I'm having a hard time finding info about DT development. It's been a while since he posted anything on social media. I'll let you know if I find anything.
@@JasonPolakPhotography I run Linux so I will try Ansel. Considering the means it's extremly impressive what they've been able to turn DT into. There is some activity on the Ansel webbpage and it seems Aurelien been putting in a lot of work for very little money.
I might look at Darktable thoroughly now.
I installed it a few months back and played with it, but being used to Lightroom it felt a bit scary, so I uninstalled it.
Listening to you makes me consider this software again....and yes, I fully agree with you on your take on AI.....I seriously hate it too!
I think it's sort of what you're used to. I tried Lightroom a few years after using darktable and found it unintuitive too. So just give it some time and you might like it.
Darktable can indeed look a bit scary if you are not used to it. My trick not to get lost was to create a custom tab with the modules I'm using for most of the images. What also helps is to find reasonable default settings for those modules and create a style from them. I apply this style to all images after import. That serves as a good starting point for most of them so that I can only apply specific tweaks where needed.
So what can you say now in 10 months, have you experienced success using Darktable?
Thanks for mentioning bloat. Nobody seems to notice these days. I think Photoshop has been a bloat fest since about 2004.
The new Creative Cloud interface is quite an abomination!
fully agree :) never invested in adobe system, just LR on my phone. I was using Marketable for my IR photos and soon after a loooooong learning curve, I started liking it more and more and use it now for my norma photos too
It's even great for touching up jpegs and other formats. Still learning it, but love this program.
Indeed. It works very well for JPEGs, and it's even faster with them.
My one issue with darktable is the UI. Where things that should take 1 click end up taking 3 or 4. This adds up over time and I don't have the patience for it. There's a reason LR is king. It's just fast to work with. If they can streamline the UI, sure. I tried it a year ago, and I just don't have the patience for clicking through endless menus just to accomplish what I could in LR in one click.
What are some examples of the things you mention?
Point 3 (open source) may not seem relevant to most users but for me it's currently essential since I switched to a camera which is not supported yet (and cannot be until there will be a libraw release or snapshot with support). So I've been using a patched version of both libraw and darktable since February and don't have to wait.
Open source (GPL) also means that it's VERY unlikely that the software will ever become a paid subscription.
I can't really agree with the AI argument.. sure it has the potential to infringe on creativity, but it offers many features that are simply time savers.
Like the oppurtinity to perfectly auto mask my images very fast. It's just a time saver, i did the same thing before AI features came, just a bit worse (no perfect edges in lightroom, just radial or brush masking) and it took me a lot longer and wasn't able to sync it across similar images.
I will try darktable nevertheless. I would like them to bring auto masking capabilities with option to sync.
I simply do not believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. The benefit you receive from auto-masking is nothing compared to the devastation that AI will bring upon humanity. The comment box is too small to contain my reasoning but I wrote an intro article here: medium.com/@jpolak/how-ai-will-destroy-us-dc58ea9dfe30
I, on the other hand, hope auto-masking never comes to darktable.
I'm not against AI, but I don't do AI generated images.
But what I do is take photos of real things and make them look as realistic as possible. So I use features that help me do that.
I don't use AI really, only the sky mask in Lightroom, some might consider this AI some might not. Object mask is nice too, it's not perfect, but helpful for sure. But I don't often need it. but when I do it's nice.
But I've tested these features and was not impressed.
For me sky mask in Lightroom is nice, it's quick and works well. Other AI features in Photoshop and Lightroom are inconsistent, don't work that well, content aware fill works better than the AI method. Or even me doing it manually in Photoshop by cloning.
I'm trying to get off Lr. Just started using Darktable. I really only use like 5 functions; so if I can master those; then I'm good.
What are the functions?
thanks a lot for the review! looking forward to move to linux and the only thing holding me back was lightroom since i LOVE photography. You have convinced me to go forward, thanks a lot!:)
You are welcome. Don't get discouraged at first because DT IS different. However, if you're having any trouble, you can come back and tell me what the trouble is and I will try and make a video here for you.
@@JasonPolakPhotography That is so kind of you, thank you so much! I will stick through it no matter what, it will take time but it will be worth it!
I try to use it from time to time - but I usually have the same hiccup, reducing noise fast and efficiently, and getting my colors to come out as I want them --- the colors in DT I can probably work out actually so scrap that, so I guess just a good way with working with noise that does not just go and dull the whole image. I will check out another video of yours I can see on the right - as like you, I would like to not have to pay a subscription.
Give it a try and come back with any questions!
Is there a feature to straighten a photo or more accurately, straighten the subjects in a photo where they look crooked or slanted?
Yes of course. If it's just a matter of rotation, you can right click and drag to draw a straight line and easily straighten a photo. There is also an automatic perspective correction tool that works will with perspective distortion.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Nice. Thank you very much.
You've mentioned this 'realistic preview' in another video too. This is not what I experienced with DT. By default, it displays a simplified rendering which can be very misleading when it comes to contrast and saturation (as it goes for v. 4.8.1). There is an option to see an actual preview as an export-ready picture but this is something one needs to activate manually. Worth noting, I think. Still, this is of course very useful option to have. DT is a brilliant piece of software but for an amateur like me, it feels at times overengineered and difficult to use. I may be biased by a couple of years of using RT but it is way easier and faster for me to achieve the expected effect there than in DT, even if in DT the final effect might be slightly better after all.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking about what the image looks like in the darkroom mode, not the lighttable mode (which does have that feature you are talking about).
In darktable, the darkroom mode view is 100% identical to the exported JPEG -- at least side by side, I really cannot notice the difference. That is what I meant, because in RT, the "darkroom" (editing) mode is significantly different than the export mode, and this can't be changed.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Nope, I'm talking about darkroom. There is a button at the bottom. It sits between colour assessment and RAW clipping checkers. When you hover over it the pop-up windows tell 'toggle high-quality processing'. But... I can't find a description of this module in v 4.8. manual. This could be something added in 4.8.1 and previously it was like you say. However, in the release I have installed, I have to toggle this button to have what you describe. By default, darkroom displays a fast render for me. Anyway, this minor thing - you just need to toggle one button. I have more problems with what the Filmic module does with out-of-gamut colours. It seems until you compress them together with highlights, Filmic substitutes those pixels with white, such as they would be clipped in luminance. But they are not and as soon as I turn Filmic off the colours are back (of course some areas of the pictures go clipped in luminance then, but those I'm talking about return their colours). I don't find a way to go over it. The funny thing, even with Filmic on, those areas get some of their colours back when exporting to 16-bit TIF but they don't if exporting to jpg. So until I won't find a better solution, I export always to TIF and then I change colour space and export to jpg in Krita. RT might be less sophisticated overall, but it doesn't create such problems for me. Still, I really like some features of DT and I'd like to learn how to use it properly. But I have struggled so far.
Excellent presentation. Precise and covered all key points that a new user looks for, like me. Totally disgusted by Adobe and it's highway robbery, especially now I am on tight pension income, but want to pursue my hobby.
Thank you very much. Darktable IS different, and works different than Adobe. But it's no worse. Some people get shocked by the differences and think it's not as good, but I remember once I tried Lightroom. That was after I was using darktable for a while. And, I had a very hard time using it.
So I think it's mainly what you started with first. So, if it looks different, don't give up and you'll get it! Darktable is free and I use it as a professional so I can say it does almost everything that a photographer could want.
Very well put, Jason. I am in sync with all your views about Darktable, not least that AI is destructive when set to substitute creativity and personal decisions. I use DxO PureRAW 2, which I believe is AI supported, so it represents the limit for my accept of AI. I hope more good photographers will overcome their fear and dive into this non commercial and very good software. A few minor bugs may exist, but they are also all over the most expensive raw managers. I have tried a fair number, so I know, and as you say - it's way easier to get qualified help with Darktable than with any other software.
Keep up with your Darktable related videos here, please. Thank you.
Thank you very much and indeed, AI should not start guiding us on image-editing decisions. It's true that noise-reduction AI doesn't do anything creative and so isn't the same as some of the other more drastic AI applications. More videos are definitely forthcoming! Cheers.
Thanks Jason. All this is very true. So I hope that more than only dt users watch your video.
I hope so too! Thanks for the support!
I might try it again, especially since it supports OM1-II camera. AI has its place in editing tools and yes some companies get carried away.
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.
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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.
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.
Hmm. Well, it's good that your issue has been fixed. Maybe the issue only affects certain Raws.
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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.
Well, I think really you should use what works! Darktable isn't for everyone, just like Lightroom and Capture One aren't for everyone!
@@JasonPolakPhotography 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.
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.
@@JasonPolakPhotography The magenta thing seems to be rrelated to Standard color matrix, switching it solves it, even when switching back.
Thank you!
This is excellent information, thank you.
I agree with you. Right things! ❤
Nice! Keep on using open source when you can!
@@JasonPolakPhotography Yes I do
Thanks a lot, I will
My perpetual LR license is dead now as I moved to a new computer, no way to move it, so I'm deciding whether DT can replace it or should I go with LR subscription from now on. I installed DT, but so far I wasn't very happy with it, but perhaps because of having no prior experience. To me UI seems to be not well thought through, not intuitive, and rather kludgy, so I have to watch videos just to figure out the basics.
What I need is this. First, I'm using DXO PR3 to convert raw files to dng. I don't need DT to do the conversion. There is nothing as good as DXO doing demosaicing, noise reduction, and optical corrections. What I need DT to do is to import DNG and put them into folders with the dates in EXIF, like LR does. So far, I didn't find how to do that in DT.
The other thing I need to find out how to edit in batches. I tried selecting multiple images, but DT doesn't want to edit them in lockstep. Is that possible?
Finally I need to export selected images as pdf slideshow. I didn't find that in DT either.
Editing in batches is possible with the copy/paste history stack. You edit one and then copy the history stack (right sidebar) and paste it to other images.
DT is also not a Lightroom clone. It works differently than LR. To be honest after using DT first and then trying LR, LR seems strange and disorganized to me...so I think it's just a matter of what you used first.
But in all, it seems like you want more of an LR clone. DT does not have the same sort of features that LR does, and thus, DT is simply not the program for you.
@@JasonPolakPhotography I found copy/paste, not really as convenient as synced editing. But the bigger problem it keeps screwing up the white balance and I still don't know how to make it apply my edits without touching white balance.
Selective copy and don't include white balance?
@rthPhoto maybe you should try it. The white balance is totally screwed in DT and more than one module affects it, and nothing I found would keep the "as shot" WB through copy/paste.
I think if you only select modules after the demosaic step and of course don't select white balance, you can't affect the white balance (except through other modules you purposely turned on like color correction).
Does Darktable work with Pentax cameras and lenses ?
Almost all Pentax cameras are supported. Check out this list to see if yours is supported: www.darktable.org/resources/camera-support/
@@JasonPolakPhotography looks like it only has white balance presets for my Pentax K3iii, can not see any lens profiles!
Lens profiles exist but that table doesn't show which ones. But not many exist for Pentax lens corrections. I think only 3 profiles exist for Pentax. So if you've got a lens with a lot of distortion, you would not be able to correct it.
I totally agree with the fact that AI spoils photography, music and video production. Creative tasks are the fun part for us human beings. Why in hell would we want to delegate that to a machine?
Most people don't want to do this delegation. Only corporations, businesses, and greedy people want to do so because they want to squeeze every last dollar in the shortest timespan possible. Techies and programmers also enjoy it because it means they can create something without learning how to do art and of course they like the technology they create because it makes them richer.
How is it an essential creative process to draw a mask over a subject or object? I think it helps to enhance creative decisions by not being such a technical hurdle. I want that object 1/3 stop brighter? click, done. This one bit less contrast? click, done. Before you had to take forever to draw masks over things.
I kind of don't see the point you try to make.. sure, the generative things can be a bit too much but auto masking for me personally was just a massive timesaver, i would have edited the images without the tools the exact same way, just would take me 3 times longer because i cant sync local image adjustments across pictures in a similar setting.
I with you and all points expect AI. Here's my stance on it though. I'm totally against artificially generated photos however I think there is a place for in it photography and editing that can benefit everyone. AI can help speed up a lot of the tedious processes when it comes to photo editing. For example if you want to mask quickly mask out your subject from a complex background. AI will save you hours for work even if you still finetune that mask manually after.
Even in cameras. Sony for example has an AI chip in the A6700 that has incredible subject recognition. Many times you only have moments to land a shot and it means the difference get stack sharp focus or struggling to shoot through those pesky branches as that rare bird flies off.
Of course AI can make things easier. And there will naturally be a place for it simply because people find it makes things easier. I still disagree with it categorically though, because supporting it in one case means supporting it in every case. That's why I'm 100% against AI, because the costs outweigh the benefits to society and even the photographic community.
Thanks 😀👍
Glad you liked it.
Do you need to delete photos only within the program in Darktable (like in Lightroom)? Please tell me.
Yes, you only need to delete them in darktable. The delete (trash) button removes the shot from the database and physically sends it to the trash, just as pressing the delete key would.
00:30 min 50.000 options? - Darktable is powerful. And i agree it give us very high quality output. But often i think it is only for non pros photographer
I am a pro photographer and I use it.
@@JasonPolakPhotography OK 👍 Did you have special workflow, add ons and follow Up?
Yes, I know darktable can't be used by all pros who have a special workflow that depends on some Lightroom thing. Not all pros are dependent on such things....
I'm in the process of moving away from the Windows ecosystem and while I'm happy with photoshop and Lightroom, they don't run on Linux.
True. Not many programs do in the Raw development sphere, I'm afraid. You've only got Darktable and Rawtherappee (and their derivatives, Ansel and Art, not sure about the state of those). I do recommend Darktable of course as it's my primary editor but it's certainly not for everyone, just like a manual transmission isn't for everyone. I suggest just trying both and see if one really works for you. Or get a Mac. Haha.
Amen, bro.
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.
It's amazingly capable but the interface is simply horrible. Fonts are not clear, spacing and layout is dismal... and though it's free, I really could not use something that's so unpleasant to look at.
The fonts look fine on both Linux and MacOS that I've tried. Layout looks okay as well.
When I changed from LR about 5 years ago, I found DT was different. Once you understand it, it’s fine. Fonts? Ugly to look at? I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Adobe fanboys the corporations who consider Adobe the standard are by far the dumbest people I've ever met
A lot of people hate Adobe. Adobe fans often first think it has something to do with the subscription and of course, some people hate the subscription. But the reasons to hate Adobe go far beyond subscription: they support AI, their software is bloated, they install all sorts of weird helper services on your computer, they keep aggressively advertising new features (especially AI features) in existing software, and somehow there is an inexplicable dirty aura whenever any of their apps opens.
AI masking is not bad, nor is it taking away your creativity. It saves you time from having you sit there and try to mask something for 10 minutes.
AI removal is also just clone stamp/healing tool on steroids. At least that is how I use it. Instead of cloning like a mad man for 1 hour, I can get the same end result I want in 10 min. It is still what I intended to create in the first place
AI upscaling and denoise is also fantastic; especiallt from Topaz.
Those are all tools/effects you use already in less efficient ways.
But AI adjustments, that automatically start editing, or that starts adding new content, those I dont like either. Same with AI generated images for anything other than just playing around and memes is just insulting to artists everywhere. I hate it, that instagram is filling up with AI images that are then not labeled AI generated....
Using software for AI generative fill or cloning in my mind is a bad thing precisely because it supports those corporations who naturally will take the next step.
Moreover, AI-upscaling can introduce artifacts and so can denoising. And it's one step away from using minor generative functions to fill in details, so on those grounds I don't use it. I also don't like the encouragement of efficiency to its logical end. If I have an image that's too noisy, I take less images.
Moderation is good in technology and the encouragement of efficiency with AI in my opinion is a bad thing. I don't mind producing less content and people who aim to produce as much as possible are part of the problem.
Your insights and presentation on Darktable are appreciated, but I must express my disagreement regarding your views on AI. AI significantly enhances various aspects of daily life and is unlikely to hinder human creativity. In fact, individuals with expertise can leverage AI to become more productive. For instance, as someone who is not a photographer, I might use AI to generate an image for my job (be it for a blog, website, e-shop, etc.). However, I might not achieve the desired result due to an inaccurate prompt. Conversely, if I communicate my envisioned outcome to you, you could craft a highly descriptive prompt that yields the perfect result. You have the ability to incorporate technical specifications in your prompt that I am unaware of. So, what's the point here? Anyone with expertise can utilize AI to achieve better and faster results, leading to increased productivity
I vehemently disagree with your entire argument, and I don't believe AI enhances any aspect of daily life. Your example of using AI to generate a "photograph" is an example of removing the dependence of people on other people on a massive scale, and leads to wealth concentration in the hands of the most technically skilled. I would never use AI to generate any photos. In practice, it's clear that creatives are being fired and replaced by AI.
Moreover, highly skilled people using AI better is only temporary. It will evolve beyond the need of any technical expertise.
And yes, you are right that AI might increase productivity, but I see that as a detriment: humanity will use this increased producitivty to increase its consumption, not to be more sustainable. What are we going to be more productive at? Destroying the ecosystem? Technology requires mining and resources, and increased productivity means more mining, more habitat destruction, and distancing ourselves further from the natural world. I see your desire for increased productivity as an artifact from our addition and obsession with efficiency that has made us one of the most destructive organisms ever to exist. No sir, you can keep your productivity and tech-saturated world. It's disgusting and I'll do anything I can to oppose it.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Thank you for your response! I've decided not to continue this discussion as it seems futile given our differing viewpoints. I represent a perspective from those dedicated to enhancing AI experiences for end-users. I'm genuinely pleased that there are people with opinions like yours because they provide valuable feedback on what needs further development. In closing, I'd like to remind you that when humans discovered fire, some used it for beneficial purposes while others did not. However, the existence and utility of fire were not diminished by these differing uses.
@@JasonPolakPhotography Congrats for erasing my answer :)
@NightDevs: You are an emotional one, aren't you? I didn't erase your answer. All comments on my channel are moderated because there are too many thoughtless ones....and so it takes some days to get the decent ones approved.
Here's a longer response: we don't just have different viewpoints. Your "perspective" for enhancing AI is one of your function/vocation and isn't a moral philosophy regarding the effects of AI on society. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt my opinion has anything to do with enhancing AI, and I hope it won't improve AI, although I suspect people like you will simply find more ways to psychologically manipulate people into believing AI can help them, when in reality it is just another prisoner's dilemma situation of short-term gains for those who benefit against the long-term damages which you haven't seem to have considered. Moreover, your comparison to fire is a rather intellectual weak analogy: different inventions are different. When fire was discovered, people did not have global influence. I am obviously aware of fire, other technological inventions, and their influence on society and one cannot simply reduce the arguments against AI by saying that we'll all be fine because fire was okay.
Let me close by asking you to at least consider the sociological implications beyond the benefit for those who can pay.
Your point about AI is totally absurd, it is very helpful, it just depends how we use it not to supidify photography. Not having it is one of the few disadvantages ( and is a big one) that darktable has.
I disagree. If you are looking at AI merely as a tool for photography, then I DO agree with you. Some aspects such as noise reduction aren't harmful in themselves. However, I very much disagree with you because AI is not just about photography. It's a transformational technology that will ultimately make the world worse through wealth concentration to tech companies and put many people out of business. Therefore, while you are correct in a narrow sense, you obviously did not consider the larger implications and you are only concerned with the tiny microcosm of your own photography.
The issue is far more subtle that you have presented. I welcome you to consider the more subtle dangers of AI first before writing something without much thought.
Bro when you use the autofocus in your camera you are already using Ai. It's just a tool! (Which can produce good and bad results like anything else). I don't understand the hate.
Sorry to say, but there is a lot more to technology than it just being a tool. If technology were just a tool, we should not discuss it at all because that's where it ends: "just a tool". But we do have to have discussions about the nature of technology, because not all is created equal, including AI.
AI is more than just a tool for photography: if that is where it ended, then I would not have much problem with it. But it is far more than that: it is part of a wider social phenomenon to concentrate wealth into the hands of technology companies.
Moreover, AI is another step for technology to isolate us and destroy local communities and remove the feeling of being useful in general human populations. It is uncontrollable and will flood the world with artificially generated things.
One must distinguish between technology as it is used to relieve some manual labor and AI which is poised to take over creative decisions. There is a distinction there, and the fact that you have failed to make that distinction and distilled your entire reply down to "I don't understand the hate" means you haven't spent more than a couple of minutes thinking about this topic in a most superficial way.
The world would be a much better place if there were less thinking like your own about the short-term gains about what you can do with tools and more basic questioning about the larger, long-term social implications.
@@JasonPolakPhotographyYoooo the big picture is not at all under discussion! Ai is of course more than "just a tool". Whether you use a little bit of Ai to support denoising or to better design the suggestions in your search engine is something completely different than Ai which generates images or dominates humanity in the future (there are no limits to imagination). Ai has been around for so long and we use it every day whether we want it or not. You can do so many things with Ai and also just use it as a tool.
@findefuchs. I disagree. The big picture should always be under discussion no matter what we do, and supporting AI in one domain means support for it in others because of the way knowledge propagates. I reject your premise that we can use it as merely a tool without affecting other areas. Smartphones are a similar example: you can use them as you wish for harmless purposes, but just by using them, you support the encroachment of technology in all forms by funding their development.
Your perspective is one that concerns only yourself and the world is in dire straights because of your sort of philosophy. However, we should never separate any act away from all its effects, now and into the future.
My claim is that we should do whatever we can to oppose AI, even if that means giving up some of the small "benefits" it provides. Moreover, most of the "benefits" provided by AI, including noise reduction, aren't as great as they seem -- but that's a different discussion.
As I said, Ai has existed for so long in so many areas that we don't even notice it and that certainly won't change any time soon. I am also critical of future developments because, as you said, the possibilities will soon be unlimited. But I still think it's ok to use programs and applications that work with Ai, otherwise you'll soon only be able to use pen and paper.
Well, we disagree there. It is true that AI exists in many forms and it is hard to oppose. Nonetheless, if water is entering your house through a flood, surely you'd try to excavate as much as possible to prevent as much damage as possible, even if you can't get rid of all of it?
In the same vein, I will refuse to support AI as much as possible, even though stopping it is of course difficult. I turn off AI features when I can, I don't support it as much as I can, and if enough people do the same, we can make it economically infeasible to develop. Ideally, it would be relegated to a few obscure applications.
My conclusion is that we should AVOID AI programs as much as possible, especially in the realm of generative/"creative" AI, which is the most harmful.
And I would gladly give up technology for pen and paper, if it meant that I could survive and have a simple life that way, and that humanity returned to a more harmonious existence with nature. One of my only motivations for using technology now is so that I can try and have some influence on the world and fund that influence. Perhaps it will be futile, but all we can do is try.
So go ahead and use AI programs...though I won't be interested in the result.
Any thoughts on DT vs. Topaz Sharpen? Topaz results are amazing, far better than any other I've seen.
Sorry George, but I haven't used Topaz Sharpen! DT works pretty well for me.