Yet, LR is industrial standard no matter how enthusiastic developers of free software try. I wish that Adobe have proper competition, working on linux. There isn't.
I have a different problem with Lightroom being an industrial standard. If you avoid Lightroom, you cannot find a photography teacher.
You can find a Darktable teacher, and I did. He is a professional photographer, but I disagree with that particular teacher's style in photography - especially the rejection of strong edits even if they do work as creative reinterpretations of the scene.
You can find a photography teacher with good taste in composition, with recognition that both ultra-constrained and creative edits have their place (and I did find such a teacher), but that teacher will inevitably use Lightroom. That teacher recognizes what needs to be edited, recognizes that Darktable has the right to exist, but will explain the needed changes using Lightroom tool names.
It's now your job to translate - and, importantly, translate the visual effect achieved, not the slider name. This requires seeing the intended effect. This requires doing it in Lightroom first and then trying to make Darktable output look the same.
For example, the teacher asked for a high-key edit and told me to raise the whites. In Lightroom, this keeps contrast high near the top of the tonal range, right until it abruptly becomes zero because of clipping. That "high contrast followed by clipping" behavior is exactly what the requested high-key edit needed.
But your teacher will never describe it in those contrast-related terms. Before translating the instruction into Darktable, you first have to discover the visual pattern yourself that the Lightroom slider is producing.
And the correct translation, if you use the "sigmoid" tonemapper, is the "target white" control, which the official documentation marks as "don’t touch". You need to set it to 130% via right-clicking to override the soft limit of 100%. Very non-obvious, not mentioned in the Darktable course that I went through, but the photography teacher then accepted the edit.
In summary, the requirement to learn Lightroom in advance just to understand the photography teacher is the real trap here.
I think you missed the point. Darktable, effectively, has a parametric curve (implemented by the tone mapper) at the end of its processing chain. And this "curve" will, by default, compress contrast at the bright end in a way undesirable for high-key photos (infinitely smooth rolloff instead of sharp clipping). Adding another curve below that will not help, as the contrast compression factor by the tone mapper is gradually approaching infinity. The fight with this default, which is inappropriate for high-key photos, was the topic of my previous comment.
Curves (in the form of Tone Equalizer and the old display-oriented Curve) do exist in Darktable, as well as parametric, drawn, external, and, since 5.6, AI masks.
Another problem with Darktable is, that it has millions functions, demosaic algorithms, sharpening styles, etc. and a lot of developers that probably like tons possibilities but fail incredibly with default options thus making this software inappropriate for photographers that need few reliable tools to get job done rather than experimenting with sliders and buttons.
You speak in theory that geeks and enthusiastic photographers like talk about. Pro photographers don't care, they need results.
Yes. Darktable courses go as far as saying "ignore all modules and sliders not mentioned in this course" - which of course works until you get an assignment that is best solved with one of the non-reviewed modules or sliders, and in my case it was as simple as "a professionally looking high-key photo".
And here is another problem: very weak default look. This is a problem because the default unedited look is the basis of further editing decisions, and the photographer is lured into thinking that the photo is supposed to look desaturated and with open shadows. I repeatedly got the same critique, "why did you decide to kill the contrast and color saturation that was present in your RAW file?" I didn't kill them. I didn't even know they existed. And now I made a change to my workflow (a preset) to compensate, but this should not have been necessary.
