tom0511 Posted July 3, 2007 Share #1 Posted July 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just ran some comparisons between Silkypix, C1 and original M8-in-camera jpg. As I have written before I like the tones and colors of the in camera jpg pretty good, but I want the flexibility of raw. Now I have to say right overall Silky pix (colr and tones) looks to my eye clearly better than C1. Why? For my taste C1 is pretty harsh to the highlights. The transition between darker and lighter areas in faces for example is pretty harsh. Also C1 colors sometimes seem to have an "artificial" saturation. Now you can turn down saturation and contrast in C1 but then images start to look flat IMO. Silkypix seems to produce finer tonal transitions, somewhat lower contrast and saturation but still images not looking flat. Also the WB presets of Silkypix works better for me than those of C1. (yes, I know you allways can chosse color temperature in C1) I have NOT compared detail, noise reduction, workflow etc. etc. But today I feel Silkypix could deliever me the color & tones very close to my taste and I will purchase Silkypix (used the free version so far). If anybody is interested - here I posted some low resolution images from M8, c1 and Silkypix to show what I mean. Dont compare detail becaus I had different settings for sharpening in the converters (30% in c1, natural in Silkypix) but for color and tones. I know they are not scientific, just for me to find what I like. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOT SILKYPIX vs C1? (I allready experimented a lot with other profils in C1 and use the 486uvirM8 because for me its the most flexible which works for most images "ok". Now its posibly that with more tweaking and curves etc etc you can get the same in c1 as I got in Silkypix - but I like it simple and do not like to tweak every single image) Cheers, Tom conv_comp Photo Gallery by TOM at pbase.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Hi tom0511, Take a look here Silkypix vs c1 color& tones. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fordfanjpn Posted July 3, 2007 Share #2 Posted July 3, 2007 WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOT SILKYPIX vs C1? I've been using Silkypix for a while now, starting with the D200. I still prefer it. I also have had good luck with C1 and Raw Developer, but there is something about the tonal quality of the SP conversions that really appeals to me. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 3, 2007 Share #3 Posted July 3, 2007 I just ran some comparisons between Silkypix, C1 and original M8-in-camera jpg. {snipped} Hey Tom--there are just too many variables to really tell anything from the test. But the one that will make the most difference in C1 is the "film curve" look you take. I would suggest using Film Extra Shadow for the look you like, then just tweaking the contrast and saturation a bit. But if SP gets you there faster, then that's great! For me, I find SP's colour rendition in all but daylight too variable to be of use. In tungsten, especially, it seems all over the place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted July 3, 2007 Thanks Jamie, I will give that a try too and see if the "shoulder" for the highlights in c1 will be softer that way. I have to admit so far havent anything converted in Silky which was from tungsten light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4season Posted July 3, 2007 Share #5 Posted July 3, 2007 So far, I'm liking Silkypix a lot! What C1 does really well however, is to correct for the colorful pixels that sometimes crop up in the M8's DNGs, due to it's lack of optical antialiasing. OTOH, I'm not sure that I care for C1's orientation towards batch-processing, since that's not how I'm working right now. I also like that SP has worked with all raw formats that I've thrown at it so far: DNG, NEF, ORF, and it does wonders with the relatively noisy output from my Nikon D100 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordfanjpn Posted July 3, 2007 Share #6 Posted July 3, 2007 So far, I'm liking Silkypix a lot! What C1 does really well however, is to correct for the colorful pixels that sometimes crop up in the M8's DNGs, due to it's lack of optical antialiasing. OTOH, I'm not sure that I care for C1's orientation towards batch-processing, since that's not how I'm working right now. I also like that SP has worked with all raw formats that I've thrown at it so far: DNG, NEF, ORF, and it does wonders with the relatively noisy output from my Nikon D100 You reminded me of a couple of points I forgot to make. SP has an amazing CA tool. Very easy to use and almost magical in the way it removes CA. And it handles noise better than anything else I have tried, including Noise Ninja, Neat Image and Dfine, and yet still delivers images that are sharper and more clear, for lack of a better word, than other converters. At least for my taste. YMMV. I guess I should say that I have no connection with SP other than being a very satisfied user. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernd_muc Posted July 3, 2007 Share #7 Posted July 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) When I tried SilkyPix against RAWdeveloper and Lightroom, I had the impression that (using basic settings, just doing white balance) in SilkyPix details, especially leaves of bushes or fine structures on leaves, looked like painted with wax crayons. It didn't really convince me... Bernd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordfanjpn Posted July 3, 2007 Share #8 Posted July 3, 2007 When I tried SilkyPix against RAWdeveloper and Lightroom, I had the impression that (using basic settings, just doing white balance) in SilkyPix details, especially leaves of bushes or fine structures on leaves, looked like painted with wax crayons. It didn't really convince me... Bernd Were you using the free version of SP? Unfortunately most of the important controls are locked out in the demo. You might feel differently with the full version. However, tastes do vary, and one of the great things about having so many converters to choose from is that everyone can (hopefully) find something that works for them. FWIW, I also think that Raw Developer is a great program. Very fast and easy to work with, and the conversions are really quite good. I consider it to be right up there with SP and C1. But once again, YMMV. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveB Posted October 7, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 7, 2007 Well, I've used Silkypix for almost 18 hours so I suppose I'm not quite an expert. I am favorably impressed with the file managenment in SP vs. C1 LE. It just feels much easier to use. My first impression is that the conversions are excellent, but whether the "tonal gradations" are superior to C1 will have to wait to see. I know I miss the B&W profiles that I can utilize in C1. Preset WB appears superior in SP though. Very significant is being able to play with lens geometry, perspective, etc in SP. Typically I have to wait and do all that in PS 6.0 after conversion. I very much like the idea of playing with all that perspective and lens correction stuff first. If I can level horizons and fix verticals in the conversion stage then I don't have to even process in PS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted October 8, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 8, 2007 Comparing to your Silkypix renditions your C1 files look like they have an additional S curve applied! Shadows are considerably darker and highlights brighter. A contrast reduction would bring the two closer together although you don't know what else may happen. Overall I like the look of your silkypix files. Woody Spedden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.