SilkyPix is, err, not good?

[35photo]

This crap is is crazy! These dumb camera companies that don't use the .dng RAW files instead opting for there own RAW file type and give you some crap bundled software to try to convert the files. Then you to wait til the 3rd party companies like Adobe or Apple to update there software so you can process the file. Its the biggest joke ever really! Come on....I so turned off by the whole thing. I even made the comment directly to Fuji that PLEASE USE .DNG RAW FILE FORMAT....fell on deaf ears because I was really interested in their camera.....I have second reservations now and I'll wait. Thanks

 

[aad]

But I'm assuming, since it was last updated in December, that it doesn't support the X100? That's what their site seems to be saying, anyway - the X100 isn't on the list of supported cameras there.
R

It may not support the X100, but you can get a feel for it so when your X100 arrives, you'll be familiar with the in-box version.

Personally, I'd just wait and play around with it. I think raw is a bit of a silly thing anyway.

 

[Catto]

I think raw is a bit of a silly thing anyway.

Oh god, don't go starting THAT argument...

True enough about figuring out how it works on other files, I suppose - does anyone know whether 'Raw Converter EX driven by Silkypix' (or whatever it's called) is actually the SAME as the Silkypix you can download? Or is it a customized / messed up Fuji-specific programme that just uses their conversion engine? ie. would learning to use Silkypix actually gain me anything?
R!

 

[kuzano]

Silkypix....

Silkypix....

SilkyPix that comes with the X100 appears to be a bit bad. I wonder if this is me, and wonder if anyone has used it to get good output? My TIFF conversions are full of noise, artefacts, and in general really bad. Anyone else get this?

Silkypix has ALWAYS been the worst aspect of Fuji. Great camera's.... total loser software package. From day one. Still going. Damaging to the best Pro offerings from Fuji... the S2, S3 and S5 Pro's....

The S5 has 12 EV of DR, but wouldn't know it from the software packaged with.

 

[maddoc]

.. for a moment I thought I was mistakenly at a dpreview forum ... 😱😀😉

 

[_larky]

If you do a conversion in camera, then convert in Scratchy, the difference is so huge my eyes actually started the bleed.

 

[j j]

Silkypix doesn't have the most elegant interface, but it's perfectly usable and gives good conversions with my Samsung NX. Here I suspect people are damning a program before learning how to use it.

 

[Arjay]

Does that Silkypix software package come with a help file that could shed some more light on how to convert/develop RAF files into 16-bit TIFF files without damaging the image content? Maybe the solution could be to just have some kind of dumb setup and do the most relevant PP part on another editor ...

 

[Mister E]

Wow, people still shoot raw? That's so 2005.

 

[Arjay]

Wow, people still shoot raw? That's so 2005.

Excuse me, but how much do you know of digital photography and digital post-processing? Your post is quite revealing...

Maybe you should educate yourself on digital workflows, and the advantages of 16-bit image files for post-processing and printing.

 

[skibeerr]

Silkypix came with my Panasonic G1, I almost sold the camera after looking at the files in silkypix.

That's one point where the x1 has the advantage, comes with LR.

I think we will have to wait for LR to catch up.

Wim

 

[Mister E]

Excuse me, but how much do you know of digital photography and digital post-processing? Your post is quite revealing...

It is quite revealing.

 

[aad]

Does that Silkypix software package come with a help file that could shed some more light on how to convert/develop RAF files into 16-bit TIFF files without damaging the image content? Maybe the solution could be to just have some kind of dumb setup and do the most relevant PP part on another editor ...

It has help files, but you simply select the output file type and develop away. It leaves the raw file untouched.

Seriously, it works fine, it just doesn't work like the "other" programs.

 

[_larky]

Why do my photos have incredible amount of noise and artefacting in them if it works fine? It really doesn't work fine, in camera conversion is great but Silky is appalling.

 

[Mister E]

Why do my photos have incredible amount of noise and artefacting in them if it works fine? It really doesn't work fine, in camera conversion is great but Silky is appalling.

So if the in camera conversion is good, of which is true of most modern cameras, especially Nikons, but excluding Leicas, why are you shooting RAW?

 

[Arjay]

So if the in camera conversion is good, of which is true of most modern cameras, especially Nikons, but excluding Leicas, why are you shooting RAW?

I'm sure this has already been discussed umpteen times, so I'll be brief:

RAW files do not only allow the user to correct mistakes he made during shooting (like wrong white balance or exposure), but also offer considerably better data resolution for digital image processing such as gradation curves or more complex post-processing steps. The higher data resolution means that data rounding effects will not lead to loss of data such as can be seen in processed jpg files, where overprocessing can very easily lead to posterization effects (e.g. in the rendering of skies).

 

[Sonnar Brian]

One of the features of the M9 that I look forward to is getting true RAW format files, 16-bit resolution rather than 8-bit square-roots of the original value.

If you are going to post-process images, it's important to get as much resolution as possible. When scanning negatives, I choose 16bits per color, 48-bit RGB scans. I use curves on the 48-bit images before downgrading to 24-bit RGB.

I have written my own RAW convertors for Digital cameras. Now, THAT is SO 1992.

 

[_larky]

"I have written my own RAW convertors for Digital cameras. Now, THAT is SO 1992."

You know that isn't a bad idea, if I thought it would be 3-4 months before Lightroom had support, I'd probably do the same.

 

[Arjay]

from: http://www.tony-hart.com/files/x100_initial_review.php

the catchily named 'RAW FILE CONVERTER EX powered by Silkypix' - the simply appalling bundled software that is required to handle the X100's .RAF files - is not only abysmal, but to some extent stands between me and a true understanding of what the X100 can and can't do. I know how to edit a file in LR, I know how to get the best out of it. I haven't a clue in the bundled abomination mentioned above. I'm not sure anyone does. It's slow, unresponsive and Mac Paint on my Mac Plus is capable of doing more advanced work.

How about contacting Fuji? They must have a vested interest in solving this problem. In the end, this piece of **** software is damaging the reputation of their product.

As I understand it, Fuji has set up their platinum customer support system specifically to catch and defuse problems like this.

 

[Arjay]

Well, someone has to start using the new product, right? Early adopters act as whistleblowers if something's not yet right. They're doing us a service. Or would you rather wait using a new product until it has gone to a museum?