Luminous Landscape Forum

Ray

Sep 8 2005, 03:27 AM

Quentin,
With my Canon 20D, the straight RAW conversion of a 100 ISO image seems worse with Silkypix than with the CS2 RAW converter, both in automatic mode.

Specifically, low contrast detail in the texture of concrete, for example, is fuzzier (or silkier) in the Silkypix conversion. Also, there's a grey shadow in the Silkypix conversion which has an unwanted green edge that doesn't exist in the ACR conversion.

Just first impressions. There may be other areas where Silkypix demonstrates a worthwhile advantage with certain adjustments which have to be learned.

What do you find interesting about this program?

Quentin

Sep 7 2005, 05:35 PM

Anyone tried Silkypix?

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/

Despite the cheezy name, it seems to be pretty good. I have been trying out a copy with a Kodak 14nx.

Quentin

Quentin

Sep 8 2005, 05:26 PM

QUOTE (Ray @ Sep. 08 2005,09:27)

Quentin,
With my Canon 20D, the straight RAW conversion of a 100 ISO image seems worse with Silkypix than with the CS2 RAW converter, both in automatic mode.

Specifically, low contrast detail in the texture of concrete, for example, is fuzzier (or silkier) in the Silkypix conversion. Also, there's a grey shadow in the Silkypix conversion which has an unwanted green edge that doesn't exist in the ACR conversion.

Just first impressions. There may be other areas where Silkypix demonstrates a worthwhile advantage with certain adjustments which have to be learned.

What do you find interesting about this program?

It seems to work pretty well on higher ISO Kodak files. There is some NR going on, but you can tune that (althougnb its not very intuitive)

I was reasonably impressed but probably not enough to buy the program.

I guess the name is accurate...

Quentin