View Full Version : SilkyPix is, err, not good?
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?
Really? I have only converted a couple of test shots so far and exported to Lightroom and thought they looked OK. Will have a close look later today. really have just been playing with it so far. How are you finding it?
Mine look like ****e.
Try converting in camera, then in Silky, the difference is massive for me. I get loads of mess added to my shots, wondering if I'm doing something wrong. All I do is add the shots then run a batch conversion.
Hmm.
I'm on Mac.
eurotramp
03-10-2011, 10:39
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.
Not just you. I wasted a couple of hours trying to get useable files from RAW with SilkyPix RAW converter. Total crap. Used the CD as a frisbee into the English Channel!
I will stick to JPEGS from the X100 until RAW Developer & Lightroom are updated.
I wonder if the PC software is any better? No idea why it would be, but just wonder. :) I too wil stick to JPEG's until something better comes along, then have a major day of converting :)
jsrockit
03-10-2011, 12:54
Any word on LR adding the X100... ?
Any word on LR adding the X100... ?
I'd count this as BAD news - Adobe Labs have just released their latest release candidate / beta for Lightroom / Camera Raw, which does NOT include the X100...means we have to wait for the next update to get started! Argh...unfortunate timing.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-4/
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3-4/
Dang. Our only hope is this:
"Will additional camera or lens support be available in the final release?
It is possible that additional cameras or lenses will be supported in the final release."
R
I've used the version 3.0 of SilkyPix, bundled with the Lumix G1 micro4/3 camera, since 2008, and it's still my primary raw converter. The image quality output by the converter is fine, and I find myself doing almost everything in SP except clone stamping (which I rarely do to a digital file).
I'm no computer genius, so if I can manage good files from SP, I'm certain that others can. One thing I do know that takes some adjusting to is the little "busy" symbol in the lower right hand corner of the software. When you open up a full-sized view of an image, wait until it's fully rendered (the busy symbol is gone) before doing any adjustments to your image. Conversely, wait until the busy symbol is gone before developing to TIFF or JPEG.
Now, it's also possible that the version of SP bundled with the X100 may be buggy. But the one for the G1 works fine.
~Joe
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.
the sums up my situation exactly
I have used SilkyPix for some Lumix shots in the past and found its output to be OK. However I do not like the software's GUI and partly for this reason I dont use it that much. Fortunately the Lumix's jpg engine produces some darn nice photos so I do not much have to rely on SilkyPix.
Of course this does not necessarily mean it works well with the x100 files!
Wonder if there's somewhere to download it, so I can try to get to grips with it before the camera arrives...anyone seen a link?
R
It works fine on my Lumix, but again, I prefer to shoot jpeg anyway.
You can get a trial of the "pro" version from the Silkypix website.
You can get a trial of the "pro" version from the Silkypix website.
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
I wonder if that bundled Silkypix minimum software contains specific camera profiles that could be loaded into the normal Silkypix software, making the full-blown RAW editor compatible with the X100. This could be worth a call at Fuji's customer service hotline. They can possibly provide the info about which subfolders ought to be installed in the full-version Silkypix software. Also, a specific installation routine might be helpful.
Just dreamin', I know. But maybe there's a grain of salt to it?
I have used SilkyPix for some Lumix shots in the past and found its output to be OK. However I do not like the software's GUI and partly for this reason I dont use it that much. Fortunately the Lumix's jpg engine produces some darn nice photos so I do not much have to rely on SilkyPix.
Of course this does not necessarily mean it works well with the x100 files!
Recently got a G1 (old stock cheap !) to try out and satisfy my adversion to M4/3 as opposed to AP-C / FF . SilkyPix works well for me tho its a new learning curve for me as I use LR and PS so of course feels strange.
Same comments as peterm1.
ron
sikypix, used it a few times to convert raw from LX3, found it to be really awful.
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
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.
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!
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.
.. for a moment I thought I was mistakenly at a dpreview forum ... :eek::D;)
If you do a conversion in camera, then convert in Scratchy, the difference is so huge my eyes actually started the bleed.
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.
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
03-11-2011, 01:36
Wow, people still shoot raw? That's so 2005.
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
03-11-2011, 01:43
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
03-11-2011, 01:45
Excuse me, but how much do you know of digital photography and digital post-processing? Your post is quite revealing...
It is quite revealing.
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.
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
03-11-2011, 03:47
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?
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).
Brian Sweeney
03-11-2011, 04:23
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.
"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.
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.
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?
urban_alchemist
03-11-2011, 07:56
Anyone know about Aperture support?
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...
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.
f16sunshine
03-11-2011, 08:28
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.
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.
This is what Silky makes:
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8436/silky.png
Out of this, which is an in camera JPEG conversion:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5082/incam.png
Default settings, slight difference!
@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…!
@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…!
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.
Look what it did to this guys hair! This is exactly as per what you posted. Does it do this for you?
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7553/screenshot20110311at195.png
Gabriel M.A.
03-11-2011, 11:13
I have used SilkyPix for some Lumix shots in the past and found its output to be OK. However I do not like the software's GUI and partly for this reason I dont use it that much. Fortunately the Lumix's jpg engine produces some darn nice photos so I do not much have to rely on SilkyPix.
Of course this does not necessarily mean it works well with the x100 files!
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.
@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!).
eurotramp
03-11-2011, 13:56
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
Look what it did to this guys hair! This is exactly as per what you posted. Does it do this for you?
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7553/screenshot20110311at195.png
Good GOD! Silky pix turned him grey and gave him a bad comb over!
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
Ahh :) That's much better. I shall donate to this. Thanks for the link.
UPDATE: I can confirm this gives much nicer results.
That's good news - for Mac users only. :(
Are there any ideas what Windows users coud do (other than shooting jpg)?
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
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
The X100 captures 12-bit RAW images using the RAF file type that can be converted using customised Silkypix software; a copy of which is provided with the camera. Please note Fujifilm is co-operating fully to ensure that X100 RAF file support is added to third party applications as soon as possible. This compatibility is expected to be offered via a firmware update within a few months of launch.
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 :)
tom.w.bn
03-12-2011, 07:48
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.
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.
tom.w.bn
03-12-2011, 23:20
Not in my experience. For instance, the NEF produced by a Nikon D5000 is not the same as the NEF produced by a D7000, etc, so Adobe still has to play catchup.
I'm sure the sensor is not identical so the NEF can't be the same.
Does anybody know if a Lightroom that works with M8 DNG-files also works with M9 DNG files without a Lightroom update? I doubt that.
NickTrop
03-13-2011, 05:32
If the jpegs look fine - and they do, and you can adjust "basics" like exposure in-camera if you shoot raw (don't own this camera but I'm guessing you can...) or bw conversion, and you can futz to your heart's content using the really good jpegs in a solid/powerful photo editor - like Photoshop, without issue and with more versatility (which it has), and solid output ... what do you need SP or any raw processor for anyway?
I had been interested in the X100 until I found out that Silkypix was the supplied software. I contacted Fuji to see if they were going to update Hyper-Utility to support the X100 and was told the answer was no. Interest lost.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.