Silkypix 3 vs Lightroom 2

*WMBP* · 07-17-2009, 09:23 AM

I've been using Adobe Lightroom since the original v1 beta. I'm pretty good with it - okay, I think I'm very good with it - and I am generally pretty happy about the way that it works and the output that I get. The UI is really well designed and makes it possible for me to process the 500-1000 images I bring back from a wedding very efficiently - selecting and editing.

But yesterday I downloaded the trial of Silkypix Developer Studio 3 and spent a little time playing around with it. I have to admit that I find the Silkypix UI fairly baffling. I've read some of the online manual but no doubt need to spend more time. It certainly is not "intuitive," at least not to me.

Nevertheless, I was impressed. A number of the presets seemed to snap my test images into shape instantly - doing things that I would normally take several steps doing in Lightroom. Lightroom of course has a ton of presets available but I haven't found many of them terribly useful personally. I do create some of my own, but I generally feel that they are good for the current shoot but not very useful for anything that I do later.

I'm also pleased that Silkypix 3 has some features that I wish were in Lightroom 2, in particular, a remarkably easy-to-use tool to correct perspectival distortion.

I've read some other comments about Silkypix and Lightroom here but thought I'd ask for explicit comparisons from folks who know both programs.

Also, did I get some sort of Silkypix license with my K10D or K20D that might make me eligible to buy Silkypix at a discount?

Thanks in advance,

Will

tlwyse · 07-17-2009, 10:37 AM

Interesting you should ask....and before I go on, I'm assuming that Pentax Photo Laboratory software (PPL) and SilkyPix are identical....if they aren't then nothing that follows applies to your question.

I've been chasing a couple of issues with LR2/ACR5.x and thought I'd give the Pentax raw conversion software a spin (never used it before). I was basically shocked at how much better the images were with the Pentax software.

Keep in mind that I was making no adjustments, just using the defaults. Also, this was only on 1-2 images of essentially the same subject matter, green foliage/mossy rock with a nude model in the photo, but here are some observations:

* The extra shape/detail in the foliage with the PPL software blew away what I was getting with LR/ACR. It wasn't as simple as a contrast/curve adjustment as I tried to get the overall contrast to match but still the foliage had more detail.

* The amount of "local contrast" seemed to be better, giving the perception that the PPL conversion was sharper (I had the sharpness at "0" in PPL and the default of 25 in LR/ACR so you'd THINK that LR/ACR should've bee marginally sharper).

* After applying a bit of my usual final sharpening (2 steps of USM), this extra sharpening revealed some very disturbing artifacts in the LR/ACR conversion. The artifacts looked a bit like JPEG compression artifacts and they were only really apparent at 200-300% magnification (am I pixel-peeping?) but they were very disturbing compared to the PPL images. The PPL images had more of a mushy noise look at that same magnification.

* Chromatic aberration was MUCH reduced in the PPL conversion (I was using my DA 12-24mm which I think is prone to this problem, at least with LR/ACR). Again, I made no attempt to correct for this in either software. (Does PPL know what lens I'm using and it's chromatic aberration characteristics....and corrects for it?).

* Only negatives with PPL were an overall too-blue/cyan green foliage using the defaults with LR/ACR rendering a bit warmer/more yellow foliage which I preferred. Other negative was the appearance of pretty serious halos in dark/light transition areas that was especially noticeable where dark tree trunks met the sky or other very light areas. The halo wasn't so noticeable in the composite image (unless you knew where to look) but it was very apparent when viewing individual RGB channels. The halos had almost an "HDR" look to them which makes me wonder if this is the side effect in PPL of it getting much better local contrast.

Anyway, I'm not ready to give up on LR/ACR yet because, while the results were good with PPL, I thought the software was a piece of crap otherwise. Horrible UI (looked like it was designed by a Windows programmer, not a Mac programmer, no offense) and doesn't seem to have what it takes to be a good "workflow" tool like LR and PS w/ ACR. Just my opinion though. Still more testing to do before I make up my mind. I also have a couple of Nikon and Canon colleagues of mine checking out my results to just get another opinion.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my results and I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Regards,
Terry Wyse

deejjjaaaa · 07-17-2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by WMBP

But yesterday I downloaded the trial of Silkypix Developer Studio 3

I hope you are talking about SP v4 Pro RC ? otherwise why do you need to bother yourself with v3 ?

deejjjaaaa · 07-17-2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by tlwyse

I'm assuming that Pentax Photo Laboratory software (PPL) and SilkyPix are identical.

they are not... PPL3 was using some code from SP v2 and PPL4 apparently is using some code (demosaicing/NR/CA corrections/etc) from SP v4... but UI in PPL is much worse than in SP regardless of the version

*WMBP* · 07-17-2009, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa

I hope you are talking about SP v4 Pro RC ? otherwise why do you need to bother yourself with v3 ?

As I said, I was using SilkyPix Developer Studio 3. Why? Because when I went to the SilkyPix web site, that's the release version that is readily available for download.

I have now found the preview download for SilkyPix DS 4, downloaded and installed it, and used it to process some images. I was wary of using a preview in part because the preview versions of Bibble Pro 5 (the first of which was made available months ago) are unusable. So I was happy to find that SilkyPix DS 4 preview is very usable indeed. Thanks for pointing me to it.

Will

deejjjaaaa · 07-17-2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by WMBP

I was wary of using a preview in part because the preview versions of Bibble Pro 5 (the first of which was made available months ago) are unusable.

ISL has only some minor (mostly UI) bugs in SP v4 Pro RC unlike Bibble... I guess what they are debugging (RC) is just English translation.

*WMBP* · 07-17-2009, 01:27 PM

OK, I've now processed about thirty pictures, some in SilkyPix DS 3 and most of them in Silkypix DS 4 Preview. Here are a few things I've noticed.

CON: No selective editing tool. I use the brush a lot in Lightroom 2, for example, to boost exposure on bride's gown a bit. In LightZone 3, there is an area selection tool that I don't like as well as Lightroom's brush but the tool in LightZone works too. I do note that Silkypix has a "dodging" slider which I don't understand, but which seems to increase exposure in midtones. Still, selective editing is important to me.

CON: Silkypix is slow, compared to Lightroom 2.

CON (sort of): I managed to process a number of vacation photos and I'm reasonably satisfied with the results. That's more than I can say about my experiences with Bibble Pro 4, which I've spent hours trying to figure out and which still baffles me. So Silkypix seems easier to figure out and use than Bibble Pro. But that's a pretty low standard for comparison. Compared to Lightroom 2, Silkypix is hard to "get" and I haven't gotten it very well yet. I do have the feeling that Silkypix's tools are logically organized and I think I could figure it out with a little more work. It's certainly different. But I'm not likely to find any books on Silkypix....

CON (sort of): Silkypix isn't trying to be a digital asset management program so it's perhaps unfair to complain that it isn't one. Still, selecting and tagging and captioning and keywording are an important part of my workflow. Captions often occur to me WHILE I'm editing the image. SP4 supports IPTC info (apparently earlier versions didn't), so that's good. But I think if I were to use Silkypix, I'd have to use it as a complement to Lightroom, that is, I think I'd still use Lightroom for managing images. And that really forces the question of whether SP4's processing is so much better than Lightroom's that it's worth the extra trouble.

PRO: Many photos seem to open in Silkypix 4 looking better than they do in Lightroom - and I mean, before I do any processing. I can't remember the last time I didn't at least tweak a photo in Lightroom, and in general I do more than just tweak. In Silkypix 4, at least in the photos that I worked on today, I found that some of the photos were ready to export without being touched. I think I fussed with 'em anyway. Can't control myself, it seems wrong to export without retouching a bit, and in any case I am trying to learn the program so why not? But at the moment it appears that what others here have said may be what I'm seeing, too, that Silkypix's conversions of PEF files product better initial results than Lightroom's (ACR's).

PRO: Silkypix's tool for adjusting perspectival distortion is effective and remarkably easy to use. I would use this tool far less often than I use the adjustment brush in Lightroom 2. But it's nice to have.

I've always been fond of LightZone, but it's unusably slow. Silkypix is slow but not unusably so. I think I could figure out Silkypix 4's user interface and there do seem to be quite a few excellent tools there.

Don't mean to kill my own thread. Those are my first impressions. Would love to hear more comments, especially if I've missed things that are important.

dosdan · 07-17-2009, 01:58 PM

As regards SP4 which I'm currently trialling too, you have 30 days to try it so at the end of that time the interface should seem familiar. I've got about 200 photos I've got to process so after that I'm sure I'll be comfortable with it after that.

I'm a PPL3 user because of the quality. PPL4 now looks a fair bit like SP4 so even if you don't end up with SP4, you may end up using PPL4 for the initial processing. The question I think I'll be asking myself at the end of the trial period is:

"Are the extras in SP4 (when it is finally released) worth it compared to PPL4?"

Dan.

deejjjaaaa · 07-17-2009, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by WMBP

Would love to hear more comments, especially if I've missed things that are important.

I guess you had a chance to visit the forum Shortcut Software Forums - Powered by vBulletin ?

*WMBP* · 07-17-2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa

I guess you had a chance to visit the forum Shortcut Software Forums - Powered by vBulletin ?

No, thank you very much for that link. I have been going to silkypix.com and I did not find a forum link there. Thanks.

I'm going to have another 1000 or so images in about 24 hours (wedding tomorrow) and I'm wondering if I can process or at least proof 'em in Silkypix 4. Happy couple will be in Mexico for a week so I'll have some more time to try to go beyond the basics.

Will

Lucky Sky · 07-18-2009, 02:23 PM

Will-
I too was not quite sold on LR v2 compared to PPL. But, the other forum engendered a discussion about camera profiles and LR. I took someone's advice and now use the LR "embedded" camera profile for my K20D. I'm confident that the images produced by LR now rival those products from PPL. I no longer see the need to get SilkyPix or return to PPL. That "embedded" profile unraveled the Adobe Gordian knot for me.

*WMBP* · 07-18-2009, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lucky Sky

Will-
I too was not quite sold on LR v2 compared to PPL. But, the other forum engendered a discussion about caDevemera profiles and LR. I took someone's advice and now use the LR "embedded" camera profile for my K20D. I'm confident that the images produced by LR now rival those products from PPL. I no longer see the need to get SilkyPix or return to PPL. That "embedded" profile unraveled the Adobe Gordian knot for me.

Lucky,

What's an "embedded profile"?

Will

tlwyse · 07-19-2009, 09:32 AM

Just curious, did you simply use Adobe's default profile or did you create a custom one using the procedure outlined by them? Creating a custom profile is fairly daunting even for someone used to dealing with color management and ICC profiles.

Regards,
Terry Wyse

*WMBP* · 07-19-2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by tlwyse

Just curious, did you simply use Adobe's default profile or did you create a custom one using the procedure outlined by them? Creating a custom profile is fairly daunting even for someone used to dealing with color management and ICC profiles.

Terry,

To whom were you addressing this question? Not to me, I imagine, since I haven't said anything about using anything other than Lightroom's default converter for Pentax files.

You seem to be saying that Adobe has info on its site about how to build a custom profile for Pentax raw files. Don't suppose you know where that info is, do you? And if Adobe has instructions for this, why don't they simply build this profile into Lightroom themselves?

Will

Bart · 07-19-2009, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by WMBP

What's an "embedded profile"?

I guess this is what is refered to:

Develop\ Camera calibration \ Profile