Silkypix views

Joseph A. Kurkjian said:

BTW, this is a little OT but I've been meaning to ask if you have tried SilkyPix and what your opinion was. I've been using SilkyPix for a couple of months now and am very pleased, especially with rendered landscapes; this is not to say SilkyPix is only good for one thing and one thing only, just that the program produces noticeably "excellent" landscapes (e.g. nice greens). Also FWIW the program does a good job of detail extraction without a lot of (1) associated noise or (2) the creation of aliasing errors when shooting feathers. Unfortunately SilkyPix is somewhat slow compared to RSP. Anyway, I'm interested in your opinion (assuming you have one), thanks.

Joe

Click to expand...

Joe,

I thought it worthwhile starting a new thread on this OT.

Silkypix, I love it, it may be quirky, but even though i'm embedded in LR, I find I return to Silkypix time and time again.

Why?, it renders colours beautifully, has additional colour modes akin to reversal and B&W film.

It has some really nice sharpening algorithms and great control over outline and detail emhasis etc. I also like the fine colour controller, its similar to LR, although less logical.

The lens and aberration controllers are very comprehensive, while the NR functions have false colour control and noise cancellation parameters. I also like the digital shift and rotation functions, simple, yet very useable when combined with the taste (preset) functions.

The only downside is the poor manual and basic image organisation functions.

Once you get your head around the interface its a breeze to use, ironically I don't find it slow, but i'm running an intel C2D at 3Ghz with 3Gig of ram under vista.

I started writing an introductory user guide for Silkypix a few months back and its up to ~80 pages, your welcome to review it before I release it. My intention was to sell it for a notional amount, but I may just put it into the public domain.

Anyhow, its a great RC, have you tried upsizing with it?, I was pleasantly surprised.

Oh and don't forget the notepad function (edit comment), allows you to keep notes on per image basis and stores the info in the sidecars.

As you know John, I believe the Japanese are quite nuts in imagining we don't need anything but the interface to use SilkyPix (or, for that matter work the new Canon Pigment Printers)!

My impression is that the SilkyPix engine renders landscapes and skin with special beauty. Maybe their brains are attuned to Fujicolor! Forc whatever reason it gives that special look, we'd like SPX to be more easy to use.

So I'm looking forward to you showing us exerpts and examples in small doses! Of course, everyone who loves Silkypix is welcome to add examples too!

Asher

john and joe, is it possible for you to show us a LR converted and an SP converted landscape shot? or is the difference not to be appreciated on the web? i have long heard the joys of SP, and as a landscape photographer have been intrigued and tried it briefly but being of small mind am not really able to get the hang of using it in the trial usage period.
and john, i would be interested in your manual...if i saw a sample chapter and was finally able to "see the light" with SP i'd gladly purchase ) i use mac os not vista - does that matter in the interface??
but mostly i would love to see some examples. i am a long-time c1/dxo user who is currently enmeshed in LR...and am always in search of the right tool for the right job!

Here's a landscape taken in the lakes during the late afternoon, showing colour renderings between LR and Silkypix.

All are direct RAW conversions to sRGB with no adjustments apart from changing colour modes in Silkypix.

Rendered in LR



Silkypix Standard Mode



Silkypix Memory Colour 1



Silkypix Memory Colour 2



....more to follow

Here's a landscape taken in the lakes during the late afternoon, showing colour renderings between LR and Silkypix.

All are direct RAW conversions to sRGB with no adjustments apart from changing colour modes in Silkypix.

....................................................Rendered in LR............................................................ Silkypix Standard Mode......................................






....................................................Silkypix Memory Colour 1............................................................ Silkypix Memory Colour 2......................................







....more to follow

Silkypix Film Colour v1



Silkypix Film Colour v2



Silkypix Film Colour A



Silkypix Film Color K

Hi John,

I reformatted your first post as I found it hard to compare images in one long strip even with a 21" monitor! Hope it might please you too.

The SilkyPix images seem more real and one want to run one's hand through the grass. The first or second SLKPX version seem best. Seems well saturated.

Asher

these examples are amazing john! many many thanks! i've just returned from a late afternoon shoot in the tidal marshes, so these images were perfect examples for me. i appreciate your posting them, and will study them again tomorrow...now i *have* to apply myself to figuring this program out )) actually, a quick look at your sample e-book on the weblog reminds me somewhat of the lightroom adjustments. maybe now that i have immersed myself in lr silkypix will make more sense to me.

Thanks John. I actually think the LR rendering is the best. Second best is the SP standard rendering, although it could use a little more contrast. The others all look far too artificial IMO, maybe the exception being the Film Color K rendering.

I actually had SP installed and used it quite a bit some time ago. While I liked a lot of the features, in the end I got equally good, or better, results from LR with much less fuss. This is all based on my personal preferences, of course.

Kris,

What I find fascinating about colour is that its totally perceptual and sits in the eye of the beholder.

Now I wonder, if I had presented these in a different order whether one's views on preference would change, likewise if I had left the titles off. Clearly the first image in such a set acts as a subliminal colour benchmark.

BTW, here's an overview of the modes:

Standard Colour is a default colour accurate palette which renders images with true and natural colour reproduction.

Memory Colour 1 is a vivid palette which renders images closer to what people “like” to see, it is less colour accurate and yields more saturation to colour reproduction.

Memory colour 2 is a less vivid palette which introduces 3D colour mapping to provide a more accurate and humanistic feel to colour reproduction.

Film Colour Modes emulate slide films with differing degrees of saturation and colour temperature. V1 and V2 are similar to Fuji films, while P, A and K can be likened to Agfa and Kodak films.

When using Colour Modes, here are a few things to consider if the results are not as expected.

Memory Colours may over saturate subjects which are already highly saturated (e.g. flowers, solid colours etc), it's best to lower the saturation level for the offending colour in the Fine Colour Controller.

Memory Colours may also render skin too orange and a little over saturated, I adjust the saturation and hue levels of orange in the Fine Colour Controller or consider using one of the Portrait Colour modes.

Film Colours are profiled to emulate film colour reproduction which differ depending upon lighting conditions and exposure. Therefore some images may require manual white balance adjustment to correct such characteristics.

Although bear in mind I have not tweaked any of the settings for this comparison.

I'll endeavour to post a portrait example later.

John_Nevill said:

What I find fascinating about colour is that its totally perceptual and sits in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and accurate color doesn't necessarily lead to more pleasing color.

On that note however, was the baseline LR rendering as out-of-the-box, or was LR calibrated to your camera? One of the first things that one preferably has to do, is get the LR/Camera interaction calibrated to a good baseline (same for ACR). That means that, probably, the pale blue skies in LR already become more life-like. Red hue and saturation are other candidates that can greatly benefit from calibration, and green rendering can easily be tuned to the subject at hand.

In fact, one can make as many different presets as one likes in LR / ACR, and even tweak the color response per image on the HSL control. One could even create a SilkyPix preset in LR .

Bart

Hi Bart,

The LR image was out of the box, BTW, the image was taken with 20D ~2 years ago.

Funny you should mention that one could create a SP preset in LR. I did exactly that for RSP and created Silky ICC profiles for 10D, 20D, 1D and 1DN. They are also available FOC here, along with a fews others betas for C1.

as john says, color is in the eye of the beholder, and this brings us to the eternal photography-as-art discussion which i don't want to restart here, only to say that i want to bring out in post what i saw, with my eyes or my heart, not what you saw. i find the tree leaves very blah in the LR version, perhaps needing a darker blue (contrast such as kris mentioned) or a brighter blue. memory colour 1 has the same detail in the leaves as the LR version (which i like), but the colors are more vivid around them. in truth, with this image, i am a v.2 kind of gal who likes colors on the strong side.
regardless of where we all fall in the color issue, all of this makes me want to explore SP!

Since the early days photography was about writing with light. Color came later. We always could choose Velvia and nobpdy said it was wrong. All lenses render light and color differently as do paint brushes.

The purpose of this photography is to evoke feelings. So color palette, intensity and tonalitites must express the photographer's intent. Nothing matches walking with the wind in your face and the smell of blossoms, the crunch of grass and the presence of your yourself amidst that beauty.

So remember we are not trying to reproduce colors on a patholgy slide or for a Sears Roebuck catalog of paint samples. Let's get over "real"!

We are looking to tools to express much more than that. We are drawing the vibrations of the soul!

Asher

Is its output still limited to sRGB and aRGB?

I never upgraded after version 2, mainly because of above mentioned. If necessary, I want the option to use wider spaces.

I like its color rendition very much though.

Herman

I just found this on Silkypix FAQs:

Is it possible to use a different color space besides "sRGB" and "Adobe RGB"? (Win) (Mac) (DS3E-0062)
SILKYPIX color space only supports "sRGB" and "Adobe RGB".
In addition, there is no current plan to support the other color space except for "sRGB" and "AdobeRGB".

i'm with you on this Herman, in that i use (and prefer) other color spaces than those 2. i held off on lightroom for a long time for that reason, but i finally broke down and started using prophoto in LR. however i still prefer c1 and the holmes spaces but am beginning to wonder if the next version of c1 is a myth...and am enjoying some of the other tweaks on LR.

> ... started using prophoto in LR. however i still prefer c1 and the holmes spaces

If you're referring to saturation control, you could use Holmes' ProPhoto chroma variants profiles for further editing in PS.

Herman

Herman Teeuwen said:

> ... started using prophoto in LR. however i still prefer c1 and the holmes spaces

If you're referring to saturation control, you could use Holmes' ProPhoto chroma variants profiles for further editing in PS.

Herman

Click to expand...

i do that! i apologize for being unclear, but what i meant was that i liked to use all the holmes' spaces and variants, and for that reason (among others) i preferred c1. however, i added the prophoto variants to my arsenal because in LR i could process into prophoto space and thus those variants were available for use later in PS. the prophoto space made LR a useful processor to me.
as you have pointed out, SP only allows srgb and argb (argb does have holmes chroma variants available as well). i can not process to the dcam spaces however except in c1 and dxo.

i'm greedy and lazy...i want a raw processor that allows me freedom of choice! and gives me lots of tweaks

Asher Kelman said:

The purpose of this photography is to evoke feelings. So color palette, intensity and tonalitites must express the photographer's intent. Nothing matches walking with the wind in your face and the smell of blossoms, the crunch of grass and the presence of your yourself amidst that beauty.

So remember we are not trying to reproduce colors on a patholgy slide or for a Sears Roebuck catalog of paint samples. Let's get over "real"!

Click to expand...

I agree with the photographer's intent part, but then why compare the output of an uncalibrated LR rendition, versus a tuned Silkypix version? It won't show how good Silkypix is, and it suggests that LR is a poor tool for nature shots, which it is not. Starting from a good baseline rendering is more than sensible, it makes the best reference for individual changes, trying to get the mood across. Building on a bad foundation, is not a wise approach in general, and it rarely leads to lasting satisfaction.

Bart

John_Nevill said:

Hi Bart,

The LR image was out of the box, BTW, the image was taken with 20D ~2 years ago.

Click to expand...

John,

For what it's worth, here is the baseline calibration+tweaks for ACR 4.1 / LR 1.1 for my 20D:

Camera Calibration
Red Hue: -13 , Red Sat: +26
Green Hue: 0 , Green Sat: -3
Blue Hue: +1 , Blue Sat: +1

HSL Luminance:
Reds -9
Yellows -3
Greens -5
Aquas -4
Blues +3
Magentas -4

I wonder what that would do for your LR landscape rendering, as a starting point for color rendition. From there one could tweak the white balance, adjust tonal contrast, and boost specific colors like the glowing yellows and browns in the foreground grass.

Bart

Here's the revised LR rendering based on Bart's settings:



To be honest i'm struggling to see where this thread is going.

My objective was to show what Silkypix was capable of "out of the tin" using preset colour modes as per a request from another OPF member.

None of the Silkypix renderings were tuned, nor was the LR rendering.

Furthermore I had no intention of undermining LR. In fact I use it 90% of the time. Its a great application and equally good for nature images.

I also made a point of not stating my preference on any of the Silkypix renderings. Equally I could tweak both LR and Silkypix to death to try and make renderings comaprable, but again that was not my aim.

So where do we go from here?, refrain from posting?

I believe not, let us share our knowledge, accept other's views, learn some and make better pictures!

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

John,

For what it's worth, here is the baseline calibration+tweaks for ACR 4.1 / LR 1.1 for my 20D:

Camera Calibration
Red Hue: -13 , Red Sat: +26
Green Hue: 0 , Green Sat: -3
Blue Hue: +1 , Blue Sat: +1

HSL Luminance:
Reds -9
Yellows -3
Greens -5
Aquas -4
Blues +3
Magentas -4
...

Click to expand...

Hi Bart,

Thanks a lot for sharing this info. I am somewhat confused though. I did not calibrate my 5D (yet) since I was under the impression that one has to calibrate separately for each ISO and light combination (such as ISO 100 daylight vs ISO100 tungsten, etc.). The values you have given should then be only applicable to the specific lighting conditions of the picture. Am I missing something here? How do you do the "baseline" calibration? Did you use a GM color checker target or something else?

Cheers,

Cem Usakligil said:

Hi Bart,

Thanks a lot for sharing this info.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. I thought after doing the work, why let others waste their time when it has been done already.

I am somewhat confused though. I did not calibrate my 5D (yet) since I was under the impression that one has to calibrate separately for each ISO and light combination (such as ISO 100 daylight vs ISO100 tungsten, etc.).

Click to expand...

In a perfect world that would be true, for profiles. However, Photoshop/Lightroom (using its own non-ICC 'type'of profiling) auto-juggles the rendering for a given camera model between their built-in Daylight and Tungsten rendering. Neither rendering is necessarily optimal for a given camera, and different cameras have different strenghths. Some are horrible in reds, others are very good in greens. That's why Calibration is required. My 20D and 1DsMk2 both render reds too pale/orange in Photoshop, and greens can lack a bit of 'lushness', while blues may take on a slight magenta tint. Adjusting the built-in characteristics to a more neutral performance by calibration often helps to prevent those issues.

Especially in landscape photos (usually 5000 K+), where a white-balance reference is hard to find, it is very important to be able and trust on the correct rendering of greens, yellows, tans, sky-blue, etc. for a given (or manually input) color temperature. Photoshop will still do its adjustments based on color temperature, but the baseline is slightly different.

The values you have given should then be only applicable to the specific lighting conditions of the picture. Am I missing something here? How do you do the "baseline" calibration? Did you use a GM color checker target or something else?

Click to expand...

The values I have given are based on a 20D daylight calibration for ProPhotoRGB with a GM mini-Color Checker, procedure as recommended by Rags Gardner and it was done with his script V5.2.

Here are the before/after results for my 20D:


As you may still notice, after conversion to sRGB, a significant improvement in Reds, deeper Yellows, and as a consequence 'fatter' Greens.

Again, as Asher so eloquently points out, this has little to do with the photographer's intent. That is why the photographer can now take over again in achieving his/her interpretation of the image, knowing that alterations are deliberately working towards that goal, instead of fighting inadequate rendering.

Bart

Hi Bart,

I respectfully bow to your excellent explanation, it is really helpful .
Thanks a million.

Now comes the advantage of shooting with RAW. Even if I calibrate my camera now/tomorrow, I can always go back and reapply the newest calibration settings to all the past pictures in LR ;-).

Cheers,