In darkroom, styles do not create duplicates even with box checked

[Garry611]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I checked and did not find my issue in the already reported ones

Describe the bug

In darkroom when style is selected in the left panel, one option is a check box to create a duplicate image when the style is applied. In lightroom, when the style is applied, a duplicate image is created when the box is checked. In darkroom, no duplicate image is created when the box is checked. If the file is deleted, the original file would be deleted thinking that the style was applied and modifications were being done on the duplicate.

Steps to reproduce

Enter darkroom
Select styles from the left panel, check the box to create duplicate image
Select style and append
No duplicate image or xmp file is created

Expected behavior

darktable should create a duplicate as it does in lightroom

Logfile | Screenshot | Screencast

No response

Commit

No response

Where did you obtain darktable from?

darktable.org / GitHub release

darktable version

5.4

What OS are you using?

Windows

What is the version of your OS?

Window 10

Describe your system

No response

Are you using OpenCL GPU in darktable?

Yes

If yes, what is the GPU card and driver?

Radeon

Please provide additional context if applicable. You can attach files too, but might need to rename to .txt or .zip

No response

[wpferguson]

Reproduced on current master

[TurboGit]

To me that's feature. Only on lighttable we create duplicate.

[deekayhd]

Apparently, the module works in darkroom on the currently edited image, only creation of the duplicate does not happen. I understand the argument that the latter is not feasible in the darkroom. I would make sense, IMO, to hide the checkbox for duplicate creation in darkroom, then.

EDIT: If wanted I could provide a PR to hide the checkbox in darkroom.

[Garry611]

Without making any assumptions that the code could support this, I would think that if the box is checked, the xmp file could be duplicated and the style and editing focus be shifted to the new xmp file. Just hiding the checkbox may possibly cause the following problems since the image is not duplicated. First, while you can revert back to an earlier edit by adjusting the history stack, if you compress the history stack, you may lose the ability to return to the exact original edited image prior to the style having been applied. Second, it prevents you from having the ability later to do a side-by-side comparison in lightroom of the two images. Third, depending on the sort order in lightroom, you could later trash the styled image in lightroom not realizing there is no original image remaining since the style was applied in darkroom and not lightroom.
At a very high level, it would seem the checkbox is there in order to leave the original edited image untouched while the styles are appended and further modified.
My comments are based on applying perhaps a film emulation style which may drastically shift the image and not a user's preset style which is intended to be applied to a series of images originally taken under identical conditions.

[deekayhd]

@Garry611 I guess the problems you mention could also be caused by applying a style via the quick access button on the lower left.
EDIT I just checked the coding, and it actually foresees the possibility to apply the style in darkroom view (simply ignoring the checkbox). Of course, the question remains why we would have two ways to apply a style via the quick access or the module.

[wpferguson]

Of course, the question remains why we would have two ways to apply a style via the quick access or the module.

Until 5.4(?, maybe 5.2) the styles module could not be shown in darkroom view, so the quick access button was the only way to apply a style in darkroom, and as you can see from my above comment I still didn't know you could apply a style from the styles module in darkroom. My knowledge came from using the called function in the styles module to apply a style in darkroom and watching darktable crash.

I think only new users probably use the styles module in darkroom. For me it's quicker and easier to do it the way I've been doing it for years.

EDIT: I also don't want to "waste" the screen real estate on a module I don't need in darkroom. I have better uses for it.

For a fix:

• All UI fixes are expensive, in terms of developer resources, unless you get incredibly lucky.
• The (probably) least expensive fix is to catch the view changed event and turn off the checkbox sensitivity when the view is in darkroom and turn it back on when the view is lighttable.
• Next least expensive would be hiding the checkbox instead of controlling sensitivity.
• whatever "fix" is chosen will take some testing to make sure it doesn't create a worse problem.

Severity:

• A style can be applied in darkroom and applied to a duplicate., but maybe not in the way a user might expect.
• The create duplicate checkbox in the styles module is confusing in darkroom view

[deekayhd]

The (probably) least expensive fix is to catch the view changed event and turn off the checkbox sensitivity when the view is in darkroom and turn it back on when the view is lighttable.
Next least expensive would be hiding the checkbox instead of controlling sensitivity.

This is exactly what I implemented in my fork. The checkbox is hidden (and set to false) in darkroom, and unhidden when in lighttable.

whatever "fix" is chosen will take some testing to make sure it doesn't create a worse problem.

Sure. If this is considered feasible, I can provide the change in a PR.

To apply a style to a duplicate, the user has to explicitly check the option. If that is not available in the darkroom, I do not think that the user gets confused (ok, there may be an issue raised that the checkbox is missing in the darkroom). Still, I regard it as more confusing, if an option is offered, but does not work as described.
I see the following possibilities:

1. Hide the checkbox in darkroom or, alternatively, keep it visible but inactive and unchecked o indicate that the option is not available.
2. As suggested above by Garry611, implement the creation of the duplicate and switch to it. This would be a new kind of behavior in the darkroom and cause confusion, IMO.
3. Revert the change and do not offer the module in darkroom, as there is already an established way via the quick access. Does anybody know the motivation for the recent change?

[wpferguson]

implement the creation of the duplicate and switch to it

I think that would be a REALLY bad idea. That's why we have a duplicate manager in darkroom.

Sure. If this is considered feasible, I can provide the change in a PR.

That's why I wrote a way to do it in case someone wanted to pick it up 😄. Most of the devs are tied up doing 5.4.1 fixes so I figured that this might get picked up late in the cycle if someone was looking for something to do or by someone looking to contribute. Please submit a PR.