11 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@josediazh3890 Күн бұрын
Muchas gracias
@d.p.5874 2 күн бұрын
Hi There ! Just a word to mention the DarkTable LUA script "External Editor" which is reported to allow image editing in whatever external editors you 've got in your PC. After the script enabled, you just have to set the location(s) of the .exe file of the editor(s) in the LUA folder of DT settings. Cheers and Happy New Year !
@TerryR52 5 күн бұрын
Hi Andy, thanks for this great video explaining what Adobe is doing behind the scenes. I came across something similar a while ago (which didn’t explain in anywhere near as much detail as you did about what and why things were happening) and I’d appreciate your view on how I’m getting around Adobe’s auto applied default settings versus your PV Swap alternative. I’ve used the DNG Profile Edit utility to create my own ‘Linear Profile’ (to remove all the Adobe starting values that we don’t want) and placed it in the same folder as Adobe keeps its own profiles. That means when I open an image in LR I can choose my Linear Profile from the profile drop down list without having to add a (PV Swap) preset. After watching your video I created the PV Swap preset and then tried both options alongside each other; both look, to the naked eye at least, identical as starting points. However, the advantage I see of using the Linear Profile method is that all my Tone settings etc are at zero so I have the full range of adjustments available to me on every slider in each Develop section. I’m really interested to know if there are there any advantages of using your PV Swap method that I’m missing here?
@AndyAstbury 5 күн бұрын
Hi Terry, sometimes I can see a marked difference between a PVSwap and using a linear profile, especially when there is a big difference in ISO and exposure bias between the profile source raw/dng and the target image. The difference usually manifests itself as a slight drop in exposure and perhaps a tiny drop in colour saturation. My main Lr catalogue contains images from pretty much 50 different sensors - that would be a hell of a lot of linear profiles to manage, let alone create. A straight PVSwap is something of a one-size-fits-all preset that can be applied to any sensor raw file to give a neutral-ish starting point. This is because it uses the Adobe Standard profile. Yes, it's a little more generalist than a sensor=specific linear profile, but it's easier to work with when dealing with multiple sensors in a single catalogue - that's my PoV anyway!
@TerryR52 5 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury Thanks for explaining that Andy. I'm in the fortunate, or unfortunate position depending on your PoV lol, of only having one camera, so I can absolutely see your point regarding the PV Swap being a perfect generalist way to remove Adobe's default settings if you're in the lucky state of having multiple cameras. Thanks again for your reply and all your great content
@sebastianebbinghaus 5 күн бұрын
Thanks for showing us the issue!
@AndyAstbury 4 күн бұрын
No problem!
@Andy-rk9mu 5 күн бұрын
Thx for the great video. I am trying to access dropbox files to no avail. Only NEF files is visible. Did something change?
@fintonmainz7845 7 күн бұрын
Excellent as always. How about a video for Noise Reduction in Black and White? What is/isnt important in BW noise?
@phenanrithe 7 күн бұрын
These "If you like this content" splash screens every few minutes are a little over the top.
@Jon1a 9 күн бұрын
I almost never have this problem with ACR ( zoom level is "fit to screen" ) . When it happens , Photoshop can easily get rid of that.
@nyobunknown6983 10 күн бұрын
Can you see the problem at 100%? If not, then your whole video is a waste of time. I don't view my photos at 800-1600%
@GerhardBothaWFF 6 күн бұрын
Maybe you should pay attention to what he says… he says as much. It matters when you need to go big etc… as he says.
@AndyAstbury 5 күн бұрын
Thank you Gerhard; you put so more eloquently than I would! Cheers.
@markrigg6623 12 күн бұрын
Gidday Andy! Adobe just love to do their own thing, but its starting to catch up with them. So maybe they'll snap out of it ....? Seasons greetings, Ive been away from photography for a while, and now I have a huge backlog of your vids to binge on. 😊
@f-s-r 12 күн бұрын
Well, the difference between those programs is the difference between people who wants to make the best software they can with their available time, and people who prioritizes making money by making and selling software. Propietary software makers tend to pay attention to features that they think will give them better sales, and ignore bugs that don't seem to be detrimental to sales. They won't invest any resources unless that results in more money in their pockets.
@mikedaines7843 12 күн бұрын
Happy New Year Andy. Another good LR/CR demosaicing vid and surely one day Adobe might come back to you with a response! As I said once before in all the years I have been watching KZbin vids on Adobe products, as good as they are, not one of the ‘big’ name contributors have ever mentioned this flaw even when they have referred to halos in their images! On an aside, being another old English ‘geezer’ I quite like listening to your waffle as it makes me smile and always amongst it are pearls of wisdom, please keep them coming.
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
On the point of 'no one mentions this' Mike, see my cynical reply to @freetibet1000 comment!
@luisfilipe9692 12 күн бұрын
Andy .. why dont you use Capture One 23 ? you save lot of Headache ;) Cheers ---
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
Hi Luis, as I said in another reply, I've tried C1 many times over the years. I had to use it sometimes (back in the day when it was still in the hands of PhaseOne) because it was the only way of handling PhaseOne raw files. I must add that back then, I got it for free because I was using the gear. Today though, it's just another editor I'd have to learn inside out, and frankly there are not enough days in the week for me to that! The many faults in Lightroom, frankly, I can correct/remove on the rasterized image inside Photoshop, because that's where my longest experience is. So the Lr faults are a pain the butt, but easily corrected - FOR ME. But not everyone has that knowledge, and I'm just hoping that someone, somewhere, will send a link to this video to the Lr devs - but I'm not holding my breath! The other point I was trying to make is that you can avoid the problems by using FREE stuff. And C1 isn't free, and it's not good for me without Photoshop. So C1 + Photoshop would cost more.
@bernym4047 13 күн бұрын
Thanks for this Andy. I only watched out of curiosity as I abandoned all Adobe software years ago. I would watch your videos more often but the amount of waffle and fluff I have to plough through before getting to the pith drives me insane. I usually turn up the playback speed to double until I think I've got to something interesting. I'm sure you could have condensed this by at least 30%. You are in competition with hundreds of similar channels and your viewers have a finite amount of time to spend watching you tubes.
@AndyAstbury 13 күн бұрын
That's why I put the chapter time stamps in! I know I'm prone to waffle,, like most other 66 year old English geezer, and all I can do is apologise!
@bernym4047 12 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury Fair enough :)
@Eigil_Skovgaard 13 күн бұрын
Well put Santa. One of the things Darktable should get from RawTherapee/Art is the pre-sharpening. It is very good, and it should be easy to transplant. Another problem with DT is the poor denoising, and when using DxO PureRAW 4 up front with denoising, the demosaicing becomes the one from DxO, and the AI-denoising further enhances high frequency details. In some cases the white edges ends up as bad as with Lightroom/ACR. The only way to compensate is with the two sliders Luminance and Force details. Maybe you could elaborate on the pixel peeping effects of DxO PureRAW 4's denoising - one day, Andy?
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
Eigil - matey, how are you doing!!! Totally agree about the need to 'port' the capture sharpening into Darktable - but I would 'port' ART CS and not RT's, because of where it's located. You can't add capture sharpening in RT to a linear DNG from DXO etc because CS in RT is under the demosaic tab. In ART it's under the details tab. Denoising in DT/ART/RT is not the same technology as Ai Denoise in Lr/DXO PR4 or God forbid, Topaz. I doubt comparable tech will ever come to the three FOSS editors, simply because of the time and money obtaining the huge database of samples required. I could do that video Eigil, but honestly, it's already been done by Steve Perry,and my conclusions are exactly the same as his - here's a link to it matey kzbin.info/www/bejne/namQdqimfa5qfZYsi=_tp_RUuswaWPeg-q Stay well matey, and speak soon - all the best.
@johndoe-nh9sh 13 күн бұрын
Interesting and thanks for bringing this up. I'll be taking a detailed look at this and although I'm not a LR user I do use ACR for my RAW conversion. Here's something to consider... Are you seeing this issue (to the same extent) with images shot against different backgrounds ie not blue sky?
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
ACR/Lightroom/Lightroom Mobile and Lightroom Classic all use the same demosaicing algorithm, so you will see it if you look hard enough. The edge boundaries that show the fault worst of all are either: Smooth sharp edges and curves that delineate complimentary colours (yellow eagle beak against blue sky) or, high contrast edges between high frequency and low frequency detail - such as tree branches or cliff edges and a flat sky. So, the fault can show up in landscapes as well as birds in flight shots, and potentially any style of shot in between. But the edges have to smooth and sharp; you will not see them on edges of furry animals for instance. Couple of things I need to add. 1. you can mitigate them in part by selecting Enhance Details and unchecking the denoise element if you don't need it - but that doesn't remove them totally. 2. since switching to a 45Mp mirrorless Z9, I see a lot less of them. I don't know why this is, because I used to see them on D850 shots. Someone sent me a Z9 file a few weeks ago where there was one big long halo on the underside of a long-billed birds beak. In all fairness, the halos will not impinge on the average user, because their average output involves some sort of shrinkage. But full resolution jpegs with these faults will get rejected by QC at any stock agency such as Getty/iStock - and Adobe Stock; there's irony for you!
@johndoe-nh9sh 12 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury Thanks Andy. I don't touch the detail tab in ACR (or do any additional sharpening after that in PS). Any noise reduction is done in PS (Topaz) on a duplicate layer. I've never had stock images rejected other than for keywords (using brand name). Camera wise I've shot mirrorless for the last 7 years (a9 then a1 when that came out). I have noticed it a little in some Red Kite images from a few years ago, pale blue sky, bird twisting and diving. I'll have to dig out some WTEs and have a look but I can probably count on one hand the number of trips where birds are against a blue sky from 14 years of photographing those birds on Mull 😂 I did check a nicely lit WTE with fish with hills background and that looked clear but more than anything it's something you've brought to my attention which I am very grateful for.
@freetibet1000 13 күн бұрын
I noticed this phenomenon already 10 years ago and found a solution in using Capture One instead. The blocky-ness and harsh transitions in LR actually sets you off on a very destructive path right at the beginning. This is especially problematic if we want to print large. Some of the problems seems to come from the profile curves automatically applied to the raw file in LR. The only way to somewhat reduce these artefacts is to remove these profile curves or set it to Linear curve. But it won’t eliminate the problem entirely. As you said, the demosaic algorithms in LR is inherently inferior to other softwares. As such it is not a professional tool. It will reduce the advantages of shooting raw since it doesn’t give us all the tonalities that is stored in the raw file but produces an inferior “opinion” of your raw file due to inferior algorithms. The workaround is to use DXO or Topaz as a first step, as you pointed out. A potential problem with that approach is that you will be forced to rely on a DNG in the second step and that algorithm is also developed by Adobe! My approach have been to avoid Adobe completely by entirely using Capture One and if I felt I needed some extra pixel work to be done I sent the image into Affinity Photo for the last bit of tweaking. The key here is to preserve as much original tonality as possible before we “bake” the pixels into a 16bit tiff file. It is vital to understand that any work on contrasts will change the tonality, either compress or stretch the transitions between tones. That includes any type of sharpening as well. Because of this you are absolutely right about the detrimental effects white lines and halos around edges from the beginning has on the final output. If it’s there from the beginning, it will only get worse for every step in the editing process! That’s why your observation is of such importance and we need to think twice before we decide to rely on software that produces such obvious defects. DXO and Topaz can often be necessary since they are excellent for noice reduction as well. I prefer DXO because of its excellent optical profiles and less obvious Ai involvement. But Topaz can be the better choice in certain cases. No two images are the same and for that reason we have software with different approaches and strengths for different purposes. But never do I feel I miss out by not having Lightroom or Photoshop installed on my computer!
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
I think C1 has the best 'one size fits all' demoz algo, and DXO is not quite as good. Personally, I've never managed to get into C1 myself, and when I switched to Mac from PC, I was so enamoured with Apple Aperture, that everything else fell by the wayside for a while! Adobe Bridge was always my fave DAM software, and of course, Photoshop has always been king in my book; so when Aperture was dropped, Lightrooms first incarnations were the most straight forward answer. But in this day, I just can not fathom how demosaicing can be better in FOSS editors than the worlds most popular raw editor - to me, it beggars belief. But it will cost Adobe money to fix it, and if no one complains about it, it never will be fixed.
@freetibet1000 12 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury Yes, I also belong to those that started out with Apples Aperture. I remember I was very fond of it and was so surprised when Apple decided to discontinue the product. In those days Lightroom was the obvious replacement but no matter how I really wanted it to work for me it never clicked between us. Today I know why, -it just doesn’t do the raw files justice like Aperture did and Capture One does today. I’m sure there are a number of other raw converters that can do the same fine job today. I know from experience that with DXO PhotoLab I can reach excellent results as well. But the way Capture One let me set up the workspace exactly the way I want, spread out over two monitors, and with the ability to build up my editing across several dedicated layers with individual layers masks is a godsend for me. I only wish it had a better noise reduction. I thank you for your insight into these matters and I’m so surprised that so many that call themselves professionals use Lightroom. That is very surprising to me!
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
It's not a surprise to me! It's called Adsense Revenue - forgive my cynicism! Ken Wheeler (before he started playing with super magnets!) used to use the saying "The Truth is NEVER Popular, and the POPULAR is rarely TRUE"....or something to that effect. Lightroom is the most popular raw software out there - fact. There are many dodges and wheezes in Lr that can improve it's overall image quality. But you can NOT remove the demosaicing faults within Lightroom itself. To demonstrate this, as I have, means that it's the TRUTH - hence it's going to be unpopular. To run an Adobe based YT channel, any 'bad truth' most be hushed up, swept under the carpet, and never mentioned; otherwise they will fall out of favour and lose revenue! And that is not more cynicism, it's the truth - which again, by definition, is going to be unpopular. See, we're going around in circles!!!
@freetibet1000 12 күн бұрын
@ Yes, it is obvious that some of those channels on YT that promotes Adobe products have a much larger following than others. I think Adobe was a well known software company long before they ventured into the market of raw conversion and DAM management and therefor managed to cut out a large potion of the market already at the launch of Lightroom. If I remember correctly it was only Apples Aperture that stood a chance against Lightroom in those days. Unfortunately, Apple decided not to pursue the development for very long and handed over the market to Adobe to do whatever they wanted with it. I believe that made Adobe lazy and Lightroom did very small improvements for a long time. We saw the same thing happening with Adobe InDesign and Illustrator after they had managed to outmanoeuvre the competition and almost completely stalled further developments for a few years until competition picked up and they were forced into a much more active development phase again. At the core, all these Adobe products rests on old code and hangovers from the golden years. Now they’re trying to look young and hip again with the introduction of gimmicky Ai additions to their old costume. It mostly looks like an attempt to pretend that the Christmas tree can stay in the house for an additional week if we overload it with twice as much decorations to cover up all the dead parts that is threatening to ruin the whole spectacle soon anyway. Today we have so many other excellent choices and do not need any of the Adobe products, I think. Personally, I’m very grateful for all the development teams out there that have contributed towards the verity we have today. The Adobe hegemony is broken, once and for all. That’s a good thing! I think the main reason people stick with Lightroom, despite the fact it’s far from the premium package some would like it to be, is the extensive catalogs folks have built over the years around their Lightroom workflow along with the long established muscles memory habits. Those are powerful enough motivations for not switching to another workflow unless forced to. I sure am happy I’m not stuck in that rut anyway!
@-OzSteve 13 күн бұрын
Thanks Andy, and happy new year to you. Just wondering whether photoshop has the same issue ?
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
Happy New Year to you too, thank you. To answer your question, Photoshop ACR shares the exact same demosaicing routine as Lightroom. In fact, Lightroom does not talk to Photoshop directly. It does so via an interpreter - called ACR!
@ianemmett2859 13 күн бұрын
Thanks Andy. Using PR4 with only CA adjustment, do you know why the returned DNG has zeroed the colour noise reduction?? Cheers and HNY
@ianemmett2859 13 күн бұрын
Does PureRaw ignore LRs XMP or perhaps generate a completely new one ?
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
Happy New Year to you too! If you make changes to a raw file in LrC, then right click on the image, choose Export>Process Instantly in DXO PR4, the PR4 output should come back into LrC and have the original raw edits applied to it automatically. If that's not happening, then something is awry. Are you following exactly what I do in the video?
@ianemmett2859 12 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury The Colour Noise is also zeroed on your video... But the profile changes to Adobe Colour when I do exactly as you do. It looks like your profile does not change but I can see it on the video. Very odd... I sent some photos to your email.
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
@@ianemmett2859 CNR is done by DXO at the time it does the demosaic. I turned off LUMINANCE noise reduction - different thing altogether. Go and watch the Steve Perry video if you havn't done that already. Lightroom Ai Denoise invents less false detail than DXO Ai Denoise. So if you have a halo problem, you can demosaic and remove colour noise in DXO, then use Lr Ai Denoise to remove the shot noise (luminance noise) - it does work very well IF and when you need it.
@ianemmett2859 12 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury That is the process I have used in the past but right now the colour shift is huge even after resetting the profile to Camera Neutral. I sent some photos to your email if you have a chance to take a look.
@dunnymonster 13 күн бұрын
As always Andy, thought provoking and informative 😊 Whilst I'm not a Fujifilm shooter ( other than the recent acquisition of an X100 VI ) I know many have bemoaned Lightroom's handling of their .RAF files, the " worms " effect being the biggest complaint. I assume that too is partly if not entirely due to LR de-mosaicing algorithm when met with a raw file from an X-Trans sensor. Be interesting to see how Rawtherapee and others handle such files not just in terms of artifacts but also if they can control pre sharpening halo's as you demonstrate here. Anyway, keep up the great work going into 2025! 👍
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
I'll try! As far as I'm aware, the FOSS editors CAN do a better job with RAF files, but then I have no files to really check for myself. I have some Fuji files, but they are all from GFX's - and those have Bayer pattern sensors in them. So send me some!
@jhmnieuwenhuis 13 күн бұрын
Thanks Andy, totally agree. Adobe should add a setting in the preferences for the demosaicing algorithm. I would also be prepared to pay a bit more.
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
If I had my way Hans, I would walk in to Adobe, grab hold of Eric Chan and the senior Lr dev team, and demo what I've done in this video. It's the only way they'll ever become visually aware of the problem to the point where they feel the need to address the problem. They COULD invite me to Adobe Max; but somehow I expect they won't! Which is a shame, 'cos I could use the fee!
@iainisbald 13 күн бұрын
Another issue with lightroom's demosaicing is it will produce 2x2 pixels squares on diagonal edges. You can see it on the beak of the first image.
@Slave-Of-Christ 13 күн бұрын
I noticed that. Looks terrible.
@AndyAstbury 12 күн бұрын
To both; that artifact is called 'mazing' and can be negated by the AMAZE demosaicing algorithm. But AMAZE (anti mazing and anti zippering) is not nice in areas of flat, low frequency detail such as sky. RCD (ratio corrected demosaicing) is a little gentler than AMAZE, and the best for low frequency detail areas is is VNG, or it's modern faster alternate called BILINEAR. The beauty of RT/ART and DT to a point, is that you can use combos of say RCD+Bilinear(my fave default) and you can vary the cross over between the two with a slider! And all that nice fancy stuff is bloody FREE!! Go figure...........
@andreleitecoelho5274 14 күн бұрын
Great vídeo!
@AndyAstbury 14 күн бұрын
Cheers Andre
@HerrPorinski 14 күн бұрын
Is the project down? At least there is no download possibility for mac users anymore.
@AndyAstbury 14 күн бұрын
No, but it's moved github.com/artpixls/ART/releases - one there for ARM and one for x64 Intel
@HerrPorinski 12 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury Thank you very much for the hint. I wish a great healthy and successful 2025
@dereklees 16 күн бұрын
Thank you so much for this tutorial. I use Adobe RAW and Photoshop CC only and can see a significant improvement on old images I have reprocessed using your settings, so far.
@AndyAstbury 14 күн бұрын
Thanks Derek, much appreciated
@herwigvercauteren2899 16 күн бұрын
Thanks for the clear video instructions. Very helpful !
@AndyAstbury 14 күн бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@fintonmainz7845 18 күн бұрын
I used ART for about a year but I've reverted to Rawtherapee because ART is very buggy
@AndyAstbury 18 күн бұрын
I won't deny, some versions are buggy, but the one I'm on now is pretty stable.
@fintonmainz7845 18 күн бұрын
@AndyAstbury I must have a look at the latest version. Thanks for doing these videos. They really helped me immensely.
@ianemmett2859 22 күн бұрын
Thanks
@AndyAstbury 22 күн бұрын
Many thanks 😊
@dunnymonster 22 күн бұрын
Great video as always Andy. Happy Christmas 🎄😊
@AndyAstbury 22 күн бұрын
Thanks, you too!
@ianemmett2859 23 күн бұрын
Thanks Andy. I always use the PV Swap but with Adobe Neutral rather than Adobe Standard. This seems to make the starting place even flatter. I think this is what you suggested previously. Any particular reason for the change or am I mistaken? Cheers and Merry Xmas.
@AndyAstbury 22 күн бұрын
Hi, with some sensors, such as the Z9, Camera Neutral makes some drastic saturation changes. If you opt for Camera Flat, it removes more contrast, but tends to leave the darker shadows where they are - in other words, it's not quite 'global'. Neutral and Flat are Adobe interpretations of the OEM picture control settings, and they exist as .dcp profiles of a sub folder inside Camera Raw. As I've shown in many RT and ART videos, these .dcp profiles work well in those FOSS apps. But in Lr/ACR, lately, their deployment can yield unexpected results very different from what they yield in ART/RT. Lightroom/ACR interpretation has changed a bit for certain sensors - I don't know why! But the Adobe Standard profile selection happens automatically when you do a process version swap, and it gives good global consistency across all camera sensors. So make an Adobe Standard PVS, then make another switched to Camera Neutral, and a third with Camera Flat. Set Lightroom default to the Adobe Standard variant, than you have the other two to change to if you like them better. In short, as of this date, this variant works consistently on all cameras, but Neutral and Flat are more sensor-specific and don't always yield the same level of consistency. Cheers, and have a Good One!
@ianemmett2859 22 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury For the Canon R5 both neutral and standard work well. But as you infer it is a bit of a dark art and a bit image dependent.
@Lumpiluk 23 күн бұрын
It's not only the price that puts me off DXO, but also that it doesn't seem to support Linux :/ Very helpful tutorial though!
@AndyAstbury 23 күн бұрын
With SO many distros in existence, and only around 4% global market share, the effort is not worth the reward, for most commercial software suppliers. Someone will crack it one day, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The data bases for Adobe, DXO and Topaz are huge. So FOSS devs would have a hard, time consuming task building one themselves, because they won't have access to the vast number of samples required. Doubtless a license could be bought at considerable cost; but how do they recoup the money spent? Modern photography has, up to a point, left Linux users stuck - big time.
@mikedaines7843 23 күн бұрын
A gret video Andy on how Lightroom really should be set up and as you yourself say hardly any other Lightroom videos that I've seen ever address this problem that also effects Camera Raw.
@EnzuccioGameplays 23 күн бұрын
You just made my day so much. I've been using Raw Therapee for months now and I've loved it compared to other open source software, and this was the biggest annoiance I've had. Not anymore! ಠ⌣ಠ
@jhmnieuwenhuis 23 күн бұрын
Thanks, Andy, for this comprehensive video on the background crap. I know You addressed this before, but doing it all in one video and then do a full edit, makes you understand why the pvswap is so important. Looking forward to the next one. Happy Christmas!
@eldergeek9416 24 күн бұрын
Thank you Awesome tutorial (beginner DT user here) really appreciate the effort👌🏻
@thornwebdesign 28 күн бұрын
Super awesome, straight to the point, no bs and it’s backed up with logic, reason and rationality. My type of thing!
@theowllol Ай бұрын
Your, old video still helped me out today. thank you for your information and your pictures are fantastic. wish you the best
@Skoooom Ай бұрын
It's sad we live in a world where you have to "justify" yourself for the video's length. On the contrary, we are so fortunate to have people like you working a lot to share in depth knowledge and tips like this. People who don't want that can just, as you said, watch something else. THANKS for the time taken, very comprehensive and clear tutorial for people who come from Lightroom like me and have to adjust to the RT terminology.
@AndyAstbury 25 күн бұрын
I really do struggle to keep videos as short as I can, but I usually fail miserably.
@garygraham6020 Ай бұрын
If anyone has an answer I had a problem. I have a new laptop and I was working with Darktable and it suddenly crashed, before it did there was a white balance error message. After I tried to restart the program would not load. I actually had to uninstall and reinstall to get it to work. So far it is still working. Has anyone else had this problem?
@AndyAstbury 27 күн бұрын
Hi Gary, this is a question best asked and answered on the Darktable forum at pixels.us. Very occasionally, I have a crash in FOSS while processing. Fastest way I have found around the problem is to use your file explorer and go to the image that just caused the crash. Next to the raw file you'll see the xmp written by darktable - delete it. If you don't delete it, Darktable will try to reapply it and instantly crash again; sometimes it won't appear to even start. ART is very good at doing this too! It's as if the crash is written into the xmp/arp.
@garygraham6020 27 күн бұрын
@ thank you I will try that!
@AndyAstbury 25 күн бұрын
Let me know how you get on Gary. What operating system are you using?
@garygraham6020 25 күн бұрын
@@AndyAstbury windows 11 home edition. So far this problem has not re-occurred. I did delete the image file from Darktable and is working great so far. I really appreciate your input on this! I think I accidentally generated an internal command conflict and this caused the problem. Time will tell.
@AndyAstbury 25 күн бұрын
Let me know if you get any other problems Gary. If you want anything specific covered in DT, just let me know - perhaps drop me a direct email [email protected]
@SKTechnologySolution Ай бұрын
Any idea what the custom command line would be if using Affinity Photo 2 (on a Mac) as an external editor?
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
Difficult - just spent 15 minutes trying, without success. The Affinity forums seem to offer too much confusion.
@lucasporter Ай бұрын
I am 5 years too late to this video. Unfortunately it looks like they don't make the i1 anymore.
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
Lucas - it's been replaced by the Calibrite Display Pro
@Grymt Ай бұрын
Hi Andy! The folder with DCP files seems to be empty?
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
Try this: drive.google.com/drive/folders/19gN__tZ7Z0gnckHGnjDHqfGNRZ3_ozNN?usp=sharing
@LazarusDescent Ай бұрын
Andy mate, thank you so much on such a great video! I'm very new to RT and photo editing and your videos help a lot. Love from asia
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
Thanks for watching!
@norskradiofabrikk Ай бұрын
Excellent! Amazing!
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
Thank you! Cheers!
@burnedmozzarella Ай бұрын
can i use gf10 camera profile for my GX80? presumably both has same sensor
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
All a profile does is match the sensor colour response, using a LUT or look up table. If you use a profile that does NOT match your sensor, you WILL NOT 'break' anything! All you will do is change the 'look' of the image - and you are going to do that anyway with your processing adjustments. Mismatching profiles just changes the STARTING appearance of your image.
@MassimoFelicioni-kv3zh Ай бұрын
excellent!
@AndyAstbury Ай бұрын
Thank you! Cheers!