[Breakfastographer]

Seems like I can't edit the title of the thread, but I added five more RAW converters and several version updates as they happened. So there are 28 RAW converters being compared now.

[Pentaxke]

Seems like I can't edit the title of the thread, but I added five more RAW converters and several version updates as they happened. So there are 28 RAW converters being compared now.

Thank you for a project that must have taken you hours (even days) to complete.

Lightroom and HDR projects looks woful.
C1 and the MacOS engines (Aperture, Hasselblad, etc) look best to my eyes.
For detail C1 is way ahead.

So, seems I made a good choice then (C1 user here...)

[Breakfastographer]

Thank you for a project that must have taken you hours (even days) to complete.

Lightroom and HDR projects looks woful.
C1 and the MacOS engines (Aperture, Hasselblad, etc) look best to my eyes.
For detail C1 is way ahead.

So, seems I made a good choice then (C1 user here...)

Thank you for the nice comment. Indeed, I can see now that it is going to be a bit of a commitment to keep it reasonably up to date, but I haven't given up yet.

Glad you're happy with C1, and if you don't mind the question, do you ever use styles with it? Have you ever bought extra styles? I noticed they've gradually been pushing the styles-included packages for first buyers.

[Mallee Boy]

A slight digression here....I too was a LR beta user, coming across from the old program they bought out....but balk at the drip feed subscription. I don't mind paying for genuine upgrades, but think its now just about tricks and profit...so I am stuck on LR 6 and searching.
Have SilkyPix pro....hmmm ? jury is out. Have raw Therapee, would like to like it.
can anyone point me at any good online tutorials for either of those programs ?....that was one thing Adobe did very well.

EDIT: have found the links to Raw Therapee tutorials. Still appreciate anything on Silky Pix.

---

Last edited by Mallee Boy; 12-27-2018 at 11:37 PM.

[Pentaxke]

Thank you for the nice comment. Indeed, I can see now that it is going to be a bit of a commitment to keep it reasonably up to date, but I haven't given up yet.

Glad you're happy with C1, and if you don't mind the question, do you ever use styles with it? Have you ever bought extra styles? I noticed they've gradually been pushing the styles-included packages for first buyers.

I use styles whenever I feel that a photo would benefit from it. I haven't (as of yet) purchased any, have developed some of my own. Bit I am thinking of buying some (would love to try the film package...)

[Breakfastographer]

A slight digression here....

I hope we can live with that.

EDIT: have found the links to Raw Therapee tutorials.

Do share?

Still appreciate anything on Silky Pix.

Are you looking more for video or text? Youtube has some stuff, and even if it's two years old, it should be applicable. My impression is that the program hasn't changed much during that time.

[Mallee Boy]

Right here in this sub topic....by the squirrel
The Squirrel Mafia's RawTherapee thread. Now with 50% more excellence & win! - PentaxForums.com
Have seen some youtube stuff on Silkypix sometime back, it was ok, but assumed a lot. (yes, prefer video).

[Ash]

Thanks for your contribution with this review of RAW converters. Most of us stick to what is familiar and I've been pretty satisfied with Camera RAW plugins. If there is a compelling advantage for one above this I'd be happy to hear how it is so.

[Class A]

Glad you're happy with C1, and if you don't mind the question, do you ever use styles with it?

I'm not Pentaxke but thought I'd answer as well.

I'm pretty happy with C1 (it's definitely not perfect but I prefer it over Lightroom) but I rarely use styles and would never buy any.

I feel that the styles Phase One is offering are very expensive. They are not enhancing C1 in any way, but are just using a rather restricted subset of image manipulation tools in C1 that one can just as well use oneself to the same effect. The restriction to a few tools only is deliberate so that the styles are compatible with as many as possible other tools the user may already have used or may want to add to the "styled" image. Hence, re-engineering a particular C1 style only requires dealing with a small set of tools.

The other reason I'm personally not using styles very often at all is because I feel that each image deserves its individual treatment. I fully understand that one can tweak styles, use styles mostly as inspiration, and that some styles work fine without further tweaks. However, most of the time some tweaking is required and the style will have a generic feel that isn't optimally suited to an image.

I'm happy for Phase One if they can make users happy with their style packages and earn a lot of money through that. Perhaps it helps Phase One not to go crazy with C1 pricing. There was quite a bit of upheaval in the C1 user base about the hefty price increase for updates to C1 V12. Also, Phase One have announced that they are going to discontinue the 10% discount codes that their ambassadors used to be able to advertise with. It is furthermore no longer possible to upgrade from two versions behind for the same price as Phase One has introduced a new pricing policy that makes the upgrade price depended on the version one is upgrading from.

Overall, I'm still a fan and highly recommend C1 -- to at least try it for 30 days for free -- but I found the additions in V11 and V12 underwhelming and wish they'd focus on improving the core functionality and adding better retouching capabilities (unlike Adobe, they don't need to protect Photoshop), instead of adding features that are not that commonly useful/needed.

[BigMackCam]

The other reason I'm personally not using styles very often at all is because I feel that each image deserves its individual treatment. I fully understand that one can tweak styles, use styles mostly as inspiration, and that some styles work fine without further tweaks. However, most of the time some tweaking is required and the style will have a generic feel that isn't optimally suited to an image.

I largely agree with this whatever processing software is used. I'm just not a fan of applying someone else's styles. Often, I think they're used by folks who haven't got to grips fully with the software, and feel they can get a decent enough result with presets... and that's fine, but I've yet to come across a preset or style in any software that beats what can be achieved by having a vision in your mind and knowing the software well enough to achieve it. It takes some learning and experience, but the results are well worth the effort.

The only exception for me is with film emulation. A lot of very good work has been done both commercially and in open source software development to provide film emulation profiles that - whilst no substitute for the real thing - can take an already well processed image and make it look something like it might have appeared when using a specific brand and speed of film. For those occasions where I want quite a specific film look, I'm not ashamed to use film emulation presets

[Pentaxke]

I'm not Pentaxke but thought I'd answer as well.

I'm pretty happy with C1 (it's definitely not perfect but I prefer it over Lightroom) but I rarely use styles and would never buy any.

I feel that the styles Phase One is offering are very expensive. They are not enhancing C1 in any way, but are just using a rather restricted subset of image manipulation tools in C1 that one can just as well use oneself to the same effect. The restriction to a few tools only is deliberate so that the styles are compatible with as many as possible other tools the user may already have used or may want to add to the "styled" image. Hence, re-engineering a particular C1 style only requires dealing with a small set of tools.

The other reason I'm personally not using styles very often at all is because I feel that each image deserves its individual treatment. I fully understand that one can tweak styles, use styles mostly as inspiration, and that some styles work fine without further tweaks. However, most of the time some tweaking is required and the style will have a generic feel that isn't optimally suited to an image.

I'm happy for Phase One if they can make users happy with their style packages and earn a lot of money through that. Perhaps it helps Phase One not to go crazy with C1 pricing. There was quite a bit of upheaval in the C1 user base about the hefty price increase for updates to C1 V12. Also, Phase One have announced that they are going to discontinue the 10% discount codes that their ambassadors used to be able to advertise with. It is furthermore no longer possible to upgrade from two versions behind for the same price as Phase One has introduced a new pricing policy that makes the upgrade price depended on the version one is upgrading from.

Overall, I'm still a fan and highly recommend C1 -- to at least try it for 30 days for free -- but I found the additions in V11 and V12 underwhelming and wish they'd focus on improving the core functionality and adding better retouching capabilities (unlike Adobe, they don't need to protect Photoshop), instead of adding features that are not that commonly useful/needed.

I largely agree with this whatever processing software is used. I'm just not a fan of applying someone else's styles. Often, I think they're used by folks who haven't got to grips fully with the software, and feel they can get a decent enough result with presets... and that's fine, but I've yet to come across a preset or style in any software that beats what can be achieved by having a vision in your mind and knowing the software well enough to achieve it. It takes some learning and experience, but the results are well worth the effort.

The only exception for me is with film emulation. A lot of very good work has been done both commercially and in open source software development to provide film emulation profiles that - whilst no substitute for the real thing - can take an already well processed image and make it look something like it might have appeared when using a specific brand and speed of film. For those occasions where I want quite a specific film look, I'm not ashamed to use film emulation presets

While I mostly agree, you have to bear in mind that the styles can be applied to masks and thus be applied with moderation. Moreover, this way you can also apply various styles to one image (sth LR can't if I am not mistaken.) While I agree that applying one or various styles to an image can create some generic feel to an image which quickly becomes boring, you can use them as a starting point to let your inspiration free.

Just to show what you can do with styles, these images are made with a style I made myself (probably a little overdone, but I wanted the images to reflect the morbid feel of the place.)

There are some really good styles out there (the film and B&W packages are particularly good.)

That said, the style packages are ridiculously priced and one would hope for Phase One to price them a little more sensible. That is the sole reason I haven't purchased any as of yet...

Pricing of Capture One is becoming a little 'are you out of your mind?' and I cannot imagine a lot of new users drawing in, which is a pity because it is an excellent piece of software. IQ is top notch: excellent colors and IQ, very good noise reduction, excellent speed and user experience (been using it more than a year now - I don't even know what Lightroom is anymore...) Having said all this, it isn't without its quirks though: my biggest gripes are a) no full support for Pentax EXIF and no support for K1MkII. For me, I am still contemplating. I will probably skip v12 and directly go to v13 next year.

[Class A]

a) no full support for Pentax EXIF and no support for K1MkII.

They both seem so unnecessary. K-1 II support would take them very little effort because they wouldn't produce an in-house engineered profile anyhow but just use the profile that is embedded in K-1 II DNG files. It's not a big deal, as one can use K-1 II DNG files without loss of functionality.

The Pentax EXIF support is annoying because, again, it would take very little effort to fix it. They just have to fetch a few bits of data from a different place. In a well-designed piece of software that could be just a trivial configuration change.

Adobe is not better, though, on the contrary, they are worse. IIRC, it took them over a year to fix an incorrect key mapping in Lightroom (for a commonly used feature, not something obscure), something that takes all of 2min. to fix. When I initially pointed it out to them, they said "Oh, we never noticed", which is 100% consistent with their remaining QC track record.

Again, I'm not hating on Phase One/C1. Phase One has implemented great improvements to C1 over the years and I'm very grateful that they took up a huge amount of the improvements I suggested. I'm just scratching my head as to why some simple fixes/improvements take so long to deal with or may never be addressed at all. I get that Pentaxians aren't their main audience by any stretch of the imagination but still when something takes very little effort but has the potentially of drawing in new users, it seems odd not to go for it.

[Pentaxke]

They both seem so unnecessary. K-1 II support would take them very little effort because they wouldn't produce an in-house engineered profile anyhow but just use the profile that is embedded in K-1 II DNG files. It's not a big deal, as one can use K-1 II DNG files without loss of functionality.

I have read this quite a few times, and I am curious as to where this idea comes from. I for one am not certain that this is really the case: for one, Phase One claims to engineer their profiles from up to 800 files made under different conditions. But also, If I take a file from eg. K5, and I apply the profile from X-Pro (or another camera that use the same Sony sensor) I get (very) different Colors, which if the claim would be true wouldn't be the case...

The Pentax EXIF support is annoying because, again, it would take very little effort to fix it. They just have to fetch a few bits of data from a different place. In a well-designed piece of software that could be just a trivial configuration change.

It is a very annoying problem, because if I search for a particular photo I mostly filter with camera lens (because I almost remember what lens I used.) I more or less resolved the issue by keyboarding them with the lens in question. But like you said, it shouldn't be there in the first place and takes almost no time resolving...

Adobe is not better, though, on the contrary, they are worse. IIRC, it took them over a year to fix an incorrect key mapping in Lightroom (for a commonly used feature, not something obscure), something that takes all of 2min. to fix. When I initially pointed it out to them, they said "Oh, we never noticed", which is 100% consistent with their remaining QC track record.

Curious as to what problem you are referring to.

Again, I'm not hating on Phase One/C1. Phase One has implemented great improvements to C1 over the years and I'm very grateful that they took up a huge amount of the improvements I suggested. I'm just scratching my head as to why some simple fixes/improvements take so long to deal with or may never be addressed at all. I get that Pentaxians aren't their main audience by any stretch of the imagination but still when something takes very little effort but has the potentially of drawing in new users, it seems odd not to go for it.

So true, these problems shouldn't exist in the first place.

[pschlute]

Still appreciate anything on Silky Pix

I have used Silkypix DS Pro for many years now. I am currently using DSPro 7. I cannot recommend any video tutorials but the manual that comes supplied is quite comprehensive (with a little bit of JapEnglish thrown in !). You can access it ad-hoc by clicking the help button next to a setting or tool and it opens at the relevant section.

If you have any specific questions feel free to send me a PM or start a new thread and I will do my best to help.

[Class A]

Phase One claims to engineer their profiles from up to 800 files made under different conditions.

That's their official claim and I'm sure they go through that effort for some camera models, or perhaps even most of them.

However,

1. there were several Pentax camera profiles (for the K-5 and K-3, for instance) which were deficient. The colours were off and in the case of the K-3 profile it turned out that it was just a slightly doctored K-5 profile. The tag "Pentax K5 genericv2" was still left in the K-3 profile. User ChrisM went through a bit of an ordeal with several Pentax camera profiles and posted many times to the Phase One forum for C1, if you are interested in details.
2. last time I checked (which was a long time ago), the standard camera profile in C1 gave exactly the same colours as the standard profile embedded in DNG files. You can regard that as a positive in that your potentially favoured brand-look is retained, but the narrative of a custom engineered profile certainly isn't met. Personally, I don't like the out of the box look of the K-1 files in C1 and went looking for alternative camera profiles (to use them in C1 instead).

If I take a file from eg. K5, and I apply the profile from X-Pro (or another camera that use the same Sony sensor) I get (very) different Colors, which if the claim would be true wouldn't be the case.

Sure, why wouldn't you get different colours when you apply a different profile?

I don't think anyone claimed that changing profiles isn't working for Pentax cameras. Also, to Phase One's credit, after a couple of iterations, the K-5 profile became quite good, IIRC. The only complaint is that there have been irregularities with Pentax camera profiles in some cases and in other cases they don't differ what you'd get from using the profile embedded in the DNG file, both circumstances being incompatible with the notion that Phase One engineers spent many, many hours perfecting camera profiles for Pentax cameras.