Streak Club is a place for hosting and participating in creative streaks.
raw from the Q, not demosaiced, channel mixed, tone curved, and then b&w converted in rawtherapee. editing a non-demosaiced image is uhhh annoying. the preview is no help, even the 1:1 zoom is not exactly accurate either.
then, export to darktable, blur tool used on 4px radius, local contrast tool blasted because the image was too flat, trial and error exporting until result is acceptable.
is the end result any different from the demosaiced image? uhhh it's nearly impossible to compare, the second image is all the exact same edits, just with AMAZE demosaic in rawtherapee and the blur turned off in darktable, and it's a completely different result so no 1 to 1 comparison can be made. if anything at all it illustrates how distinctly different these 2 editing pipelines are despite only swapping one module for another.
for fun, same process just without the b&w conversion in rt and with white balance in dt in images 3 and 4
something compels me to point the camera at the sky even without color, and every time i actually get to editing them i go "ehh whyyy". we know why, the sky is beautiful. but its hard to capture.
i think i still prefer doing tonecurves in rawtherapee then local contrast in darktable over agx :p #mymethod (theyre pretty similar in end result but my way just feels more predictable and consistent. using rawtherapee to create the shape of the curve then exposure tool works like the pivot and the local contrast stretching finetunes the curve and lets me choose whether i want a grayer more detailed image or a more smooth and high contrasty image which is like the black point white point settings i think but just. wayy more intuitive imo)
Post a comment
the major difference i think is that colors are weighted when demosaiced, so you had to do it fully manually when non-demosaiced. you might be able to reproduce it. any way, i like the end result, and the pink one is so cute