Skip to content

Conversation

@ralfbrown
Copy link
Contributor

Also (in separate commits if you want to cherry-pick) add a note about compression formats to the Q about unable to open, and change "Lightroom alternative" to "Lightroom replacement" as the latter is more accurate phrasing.

@paperdigits
Copy link
Contributor

paperdigits commented Apr 27, 2025 via email

@ralfbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

Did you have anything specific in mind? The only thing I could find about raw vs JPEG was the section linked by the existing previous question's answer (Why doesn't the raw image look like the JPEG).

@paperdigits
Copy link
Contributor

paperdigits commented Apr 27, 2025 via email

@ralfbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

What would be the point in adding another link and having it in two successive answers, given that the manual section isn't addressing the camera's deliberate underexposure?

@paperdigits
Copy link
Contributor

paperdigits commented Apr 28, 2025 via email

@Donatzsky
Copy link
Contributor

change "Lightroom alternative" to "Lightroom replacement"

I specifically chose "alternative" since that's the term everyone seems to use when reporting on DT or comparing to LR.

@TurboGit
Copy link
Member

I also prefer alternative as replacement is exactly what we fight against new users. Darktable is not a drop-in replacement, it is very different and yes it can be an alternative. That being said I'm not an English native speaker :)

@ralfbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

I made the change to the question so that the answer to the question is specifically about not being a replacement, but rather an alternative. Added a more explicit statement of this at the start of the answer.

@Donatzsky
Copy link
Contributor

Donatzsky commented Jun 16, 2025

Thinking about it, I would keep the original question, and change the beginning of the answer:

Yes, darktable is an alternative, but not a replacement.

I'm actually planning to completely rewrite that entry, since I was never truly happy with it.


* **exiv2** is used for reading metadata from image files. If something isn't shown correctly in the [image information](https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/stable/en/module-reference/utility-modules/shared/image-information/) panel on the left side then please check with the command line tool `exiv2` and report any problems upstream on [their bug tracker](https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues) – there isn't much we can do to fix those things ourselves.
* **lensfun** is used for lens correction. If the [lens correction](https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/stable/en/module-reference/processing-modules/lens-correction/) module isn't showing your camera or lens, or a wrong one, then please report that to [those folks](https://github.com/lensfun/lensfun).
* **lensfun** is used for lens correction. If the [lens correction](https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/stable/en/module-reference/processing-modules/lens-correction/) module isn't showing your camera or lens, try running `lensfun-update-data` to get the newest lens database. If lens correction still does not show your camera/lens, or shows a wrong one, then please report that to [those folks](https://github.com/lensfun/lensfun).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should not tell people to report stuff to lensfun. We should tell them how they can submit their lens if it is not supported, but often times it is exiv2 that doesn't map the lens name correctly (if the lens is supported by lensfun) and we don't want to burden them with those "bug reports".

@Donatzsky
Copy link
Contributor

There are some good things here that I really think should be merged.

The section on dark images I think is good as-is. Linking to the manual directly doesn't make sense, I agree, but I would add See also the entry about [why raw images don't look like the JPEG](#faq-initial-look). Doesn't matter that it's just above (people are stupid).

Compression formats and SIGILL should also be merged.

I'm working on rewriting the LR alternative entry, so that should not be merged.

And I do think the Lensfun entry could use a complete rewrite, instead of just patching it up a bit. But it's still better than before, so I would merge it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants