urban_alchemist
Well-known
Anyone know about Aperture support?
GSNfan
Well-known
Somebody has to buy the damn camera and see if it works or not, if that was not the case then why release a product in the first place?
Seriously, early adopter argument is fallacious to begin with, it assumes that a product only gets better after time, while in fact it only gets better by user feedback.
The anti-RAW argument is silly as well. Why would one not shoot RAW when the differences in size is minimal, storage is cheap, batch converting is optional in processing software, and the flexibility of processing is enhanced...
Seriously, early adopter argument is fallacious to begin with, it assumes that a product only gets better after time, while in fact it only gets better by user feedback.
The anti-RAW argument is silly as well. Why would one not shoot RAW when the differences in size is minimal, storage is cheap, batch converting is optional in processing software, and the flexibility of processing is enhanced...
kuzano
Veteran
I've been in the computer industry, building, tech-ing, and consulting for 20 years.
Early adopters (adaptors) are a fundamental part of most industries. They have the deep pockets to help manufacturers recoup R&D. They have also virtually become the "beta" testers for all new releases of equipment and software product.
Fuji has done a remarkable job of lining up the "early adopters" on the X100, much like Microsoft lines up those people for new operating systems.
The X100 may be a wonderful camera... which remains to be seen. Silkypix will be the inevitable "shot in the foot". None of the people who issue Silkypix have listened to the ever constant complaint about the program. Like others who use it, Fuji presumes not to spend money in this area, as "early adopters" tend to be less demanding due to ego (How could I possibly be wrong?), and more likely to either sort out, or wait out, resolution to the issues.
By pouring their money into new products, "early adopters" are less likely to affect real positive improvement in the market. They are, in fact, the reason that most products, particularly electronics and software come to the market unfinished.
Early adopters (adaptors) are a fundamental part of most industries. They have the deep pockets to help manufacturers recoup R&D. They have also virtually become the "beta" testers for all new releases of equipment and software product.
Fuji has done a remarkable job of lining up the "early adopters" on the X100, much like Microsoft lines up those people for new operating systems.
The X100 may be a wonderful camera... which remains to be seen. Silkypix will be the inevitable "shot in the foot". None of the people who issue Silkypix have listened to the ever constant complaint about the program. Like others who use it, Fuji presumes not to spend money in this area, as "early adopters" tend to be less demanding due to ego (How could I possibly be wrong?), and more likely to either sort out, or wait out, resolution to the issues.
By pouring their money into new products, "early adopters" are less likely to affect real positive improvement in the market. They are, in fact, the reason that most products, particularly electronics and software come to the market unfinished.
Last edited by a moderator:
f16sunshine
Moderator
Another thread brought memories of silly pigs back to my memory. It is a strange and "antique" program interface for 2011. Early adopting was not an option for me as it's a busy time. Otherwise why not get into the fun. Once again I wish everyone who has the x100 now well. 
looking forward to your results and hoping Adobe and Apple are in the task.
looking forward to your results and hoping Adobe and Apple are in the task.tbhv55
Well-known
I don't have an x100, but with regard to Silkypix - I've owned a Lumix G1 for about 18months, and the Silkypix software came with the camera. When I tried it initially, I found the UI to be awful, the speed to be awful, and the output to be awful. As a result, I abandoned use of it.
About a year later, in an idle moment, I decided to experiment further, and applied myself to using Silkypix in its own way. In so doing, I learned several things about this software:
1. The UI is still fairly awful (but bearable with continued practice)
2. The speed is still fairly awful (but improves if you fit some extra RAM)
3. The output quality is excellent... IF you take the trouble to learn how to use it!
Whether the output quality will be excellent on x100 RAW files, I have no way of knowing, but I would suggest that a serious attempt at understanding Silkypix is worth a try, before condemning it. By this, I don't mean fifteen minutes of half-hearted fiddling before running out of patience... I mean really trying to understand the software. Attempting to use it in the same way as one would use Photoshop, is a waste of time. It really is very different to Photoshop.
About a year later, in an idle moment, I decided to experiment further, and applied myself to using Silkypix in its own way. In so doing, I learned several things about this software:
1. The UI is still fairly awful (but bearable with continued practice)
2. The speed is still fairly awful (but improves if you fit some extra RAM)
3. The output quality is excellent... IF you take the trouble to learn how to use it!
Whether the output quality will be excellent on x100 RAW files, I have no way of knowing, but I would suggest that a serious attempt at understanding Silkypix is worth a try, before condemning it. By this, I don't mean fifteen minutes of half-hearted fiddling before running out of patience... I mean really trying to understand the software. Attempting to use it in the same way as one would use Photoshop, is a waste of time. It really is very different to Photoshop.
_larky
Well-known
Got any tips?
_larky
Well-known
This is what Silky makes:
Out of this, which is an in camera JPEG conversion:
Default settings, slight difference!
Out of this, which is an in camera JPEG conversion:
Default settings, slight difference!
tbhv55
Well-known
@larky
I’m always a little wary of giving tips on RAW developing, as your photography might be (and probably is) quite different to mine. In addition, you’re using an x100 rather than a Lumix G1, so it’s quite possible/probable that the results (using my settings) on your images might not please you. However, I’ll offer the settings that I use (as a starting-point) with the G1… these are as follows:-
Exposure
Exposure --- +0.2
Tone
Contrast --- 2.0
Contrast centre --- 0.30
Gamma --- 1.15
Black level --- 9
Colour
“Film Colour K” … (Saturation usually 1.0 to 1.2)
Sharpening
Natural
Highlight controller
DR expansion --- 3.0 (if Dynamic Range is a problem in the particular image being processed)
When doing black and white work, the above settings are amended as follows:-
Tone
Black level --- 15
Colour
“Monochrome 2”
I’ve saved these settings as Development Parameters (in the File menu), so that they can applied to an image quickly and easily. The usual fine-tuning then follows, until I see the desired result (or something tolerably close to it!).
Hopefully, these settings will provide a useful basis for you to experiment with your x100 RAW files, but if the results are awful, then I’m afraid that you’ll have to resort to starting from scratch, in order to get your own settings to suit the x100. Good luck…!
I’m always a little wary of giving tips on RAW developing, as your photography might be (and probably is) quite different to mine. In addition, you’re using an x100 rather than a Lumix G1, so it’s quite possible/probable that the results (using my settings) on your images might not please you. However, I’ll offer the settings that I use (as a starting-point) with the G1… these are as follows:-
Exposure
Exposure --- +0.2
Tone
Contrast --- 2.0
Contrast centre --- 0.30
Gamma --- 1.15
Black level --- 9
Colour
“Film Colour K” … (Saturation usually 1.0 to 1.2)
Sharpening
Natural
Highlight controller
DR expansion --- 3.0 (if Dynamic Range is a problem in the particular image being processed)
When doing black and white work, the above settings are amended as follows:-
Tone
Black level --- 15
Colour
“Monochrome 2”
I’ve saved these settings as Development Parameters (in the File menu), so that they can applied to an image quickly and easily. The usual fine-tuning then follows, until I see the desired result (or something tolerably close to it!).
Hopefully, these settings will provide a useful basis for you to experiment with your x100 RAW files, but if the results are awful, then I’m afraid that you’ll have to resort to starting from scratch, in order to get your own settings to suit the x100. Good luck…!
_larky
Well-known
Thanks
I'll test that now. But no matter what I do, I get that odd freaky cat-stripe like pattern everywhere. Looks like Silky is applying two dozen shoddy Lightroom presets it found on makemypictureslookrad.com and then adding BLUE BLUE BLOE MORE BLUE I NEED BLUE!!!At least that's what I get.
_larky
Well-known
Look what it did to this guys hair! This is exactly as per what you posted. Does it do this for you?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
SilkyPix should be banned from the face of the Earth. I used it and found it to be too complicated to achieve the most of mediocre results. The output is OK if the shot itself is exposed reasonably-well, but trying to do anything advanced is only something that I'm sure the albino in The Da Vinci Code would have willingly engaged in.
Poor design, unintuitive...it's like it was designed by a kid who gets excellent grades but who doesn't understand how to apply the course material in real life. Vetted by his public employee uncle Whokaresson.
tbhv55
Well-known
@larky
That’s a horrible mess! It seems that the x100 files are somewhat different to those from the G1. I’m afraid that I’ve got nothing else to suggest (other than continued experimentation), as I’ve no knowledge of the x100.
Sorry that my settings didn’t work out for you, but I suppose that it was a long shot, as we’re using different cameras, each from different manufacturers. I really hope that you make some progress… either with Silkypix, or whichever other software that you end up using. From the stuff that I’ve read about it, the x100 appears to be a nice tool, and it would be a crying shame if you don’t get better results than shown in your sample image.
Good luck (again!).
That’s a horrible mess! It seems that the x100 files are somewhat different to those from the G1. I’m afraid that I’ve got nothing else to suggest (other than continued experimentation), as I’ve no knowledge of the x100.
Sorry that my settings didn’t work out for you, but I suppose that it was a long shot, as we’re using different cameras, each from different manufacturers. I really hope that you make some progress… either with Silkypix, or whichever other software that you end up using. From the stuff that I’ve read about it, the x100 appears to be a nice tool, and it would be a crying shame if you don’t get better results than shown in your sample image.
Good luck (again!).
eurotramp
Member
For people who are sick of silky pix, here's a free alternative (mac only)
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/24692/raw-photo-processor
Version 4.2.1:
Added initial support for Fuji X100 and Olympus E-PL2 (note "initial support."
Added new TrueFilm profiles - LF, TC4; updated K64 and V50
Replaced Red-O-Green profile with Duo profile
Bugfixes
REQUIREMENTS
PPC / Intel, Mac OS X 10.4 or later
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/24692/raw-photo-processor
Version 4.2.1:
Added initial support for Fuji X100 and Olympus E-PL2 (note "initial support."
Added new TrueFilm profiles - LF, TC4; updated K64 and V50
Replaced Red-O-Green profile with Duo profile
Bugfixes
REQUIREMENTS
PPC / Intel, Mac OS X 10.4 or later
peterm1
Veteran
Look what it did to this guys hair! This is exactly as per what you posted. Does it do this for you?
Good GOD! Silky pix turned him grey and gave him a bad comb over!
_larky
Well-known
Ahh
That's much better. I shall donate to this. Thanks for the link.UPDATE: I can confirm this gives much nicer results.
Last edited by a moderator:
Arjay
Time Traveller
That's good news - for Mac users only.
Are there any ideas what Windows users coud do (other than shooting jpg)?
Are there any ideas what Windows users coud do (other than shooting jpg)?
katrak
BennyBlue
It's really a case of finding the right convertor for your camera. For example Silkypix 4 (and the beta 5) are very very good for the Ricoh GXR while the same software for the D700 is not so great.
One tip - for the GXR I turn all noise reduction off - the defaults are way too high. When that's done, the 3200 output from the GXR is excellent.
Some examples using Silkypix are at my blog
One tip - for the GXR I turn all noise reduction off - the defaults are way too high. When that's done, the 3200 output from the GXR is excellent.
Some examples using Silkypix are at my blog
palec
Well-known
I think it's always useful to read what manufacturer wants the customers to know:
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/latest-updates/raw-functionality-explained
I made once the mistake of buying a camera with perspective of functionality, which has never revealed later. I've learned from my own mistake not to buy anything if it does not work straight. If I want major RAW converters support, let's have it confirmed first. I have an eye on X100, and by the time Aperture/Capture One/LR will adopt it, full black version might be available
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/latest-updates/raw-functionality-explained
I made once the mistake of buying a camera with perspective of functionality, which has never revealed later. I've learned from my own mistake not to buy anything if it does not work straight. If I want major RAW converters support, let's have it confirmed first. I have an eye on X100, and by the time Aperture/Capture One/LR will adopt it, full black version might be available
user237428934
User deletion pending
That's the problem when digital consumer camera producers like panasonic or fuji add a raw format just as a gimmick. They don't even think enough about a serious use of raw. Canon and Nikon know how to do it, although they use their own proprietary format. They ship a functioning software with the cameras and all third party tool providers have the information about the raw formats in time and can react fast on new formats.
bwcolor
Veteran
Can you imagine the human anguish should Fujifilm have announced that the camera was ready to go, but they were holding the release for three months to allow for the development of a reliable raw converter? Ouch..
If they had been developing this camera with the professional/serious amateur in mind, then why didn't they immediately start working with someone to develop a good converter? Perhaps, their sense of what they were doing evolved as the project evolved.
If they had been developing this camera with the professional/serious amateur in mind, then why didn't they immediately start working with someone to develop a good converter? Perhaps, their sense of what they were doing evolved as the project evolved.
Last edited: