Attn Matt - Silkypix

For some time now, I have been dissatisfied with the colour balance I have been getting from Capture One, mainly when using flash (which I do a lot).

In view of the fact that Pentax is now supplying Silkypix as its RAW convertor, I have been having another look at this program.

I have to say, so far I find it excellent (and I am using it in the restricted free mode). Colour balance is easier to do and better, adjustments generally are easier, and the whole interface is superior - in that it takes very much less time to "learn" the program than with Capture One (and a thousand times easier than Photoshop).

Have you looked at it recently? And if so, what are your views?

G

Hi George!
You've raised two separate points here, and at the risk of thread contamination () I'll answer both:

1) Colour balance in Capture One - if you're having problems then you've missed something somewhere. I can't beat the colour from Capture One. I'd suggest reviewing my C1 points, and this very helpful tutorial:
http://www.northscape.co.uk/news467.html

Colour isn't just WB though. I use a custom camera profile, and am hoping that I'll have some very nice news for C1 Pentax users in the next few weeks. With the "Pentax istD generic v2" profile things can be a bit "flat". Have a go using the Nikon D100 profiles - they're a bit oversaturated but might give you the "lift" you might be looking for.

In addition, I get very good results using an Expodisc for WB metering. If you want I could post the WB settings for the AF360 and AF540 which you could punch straight into C1. In addition, I have the QPcard - which is much cheaper - that might help get you a decent grey point for WB setting (perhaps better for mixed flash/daylight situations).

2) Silkypix. Yes, I've tried it and the results are good. However, again it was so slow in comparison to C1 that I've decided not to switch. That's slow in terms of workflow, not necessarily in terms of individual processing. (Though I now have a dual Xeon machine made everything surprisingly fast ).

I'll reconsider Silkypix when the next version comes out, but I reckon I'll probably still be on C1

Let me know if I've missed anything
Matt

Thanks.

I'll look into all this. I get excellent results outdoors with C1, it's the flash pictures that cause problems. Perhaps these pointers will do the trick.

The newest update to Silkypix came out two weeks ago, and it's rather better than the one I tried in April. I find that processing does take time, but alterations to settings can be done very quickly. Where C1 is better is in its ability to apply just one setting at a time (wb, exposure, etc) to a batch of pictures, whilst with Silky it's all or nothing. However, the way round that is to adjust white balance first, then if anything else needs tweaking it can be done very quickly on a pic by pic basis.

With that exception, the workflow seems pretty good.

G

George,
A really simple WB metering can be done with a white sheet of paper. Just take a RAW image of a sheet lit by your flash. Bring it into C1 and use the WB tool and click on the paper. Then you can just save the WB settings for use later

If you have mixed flash/natural/tungsten then things can get interesting But the white-paper WB isn't normally far off.

Check out the "Show Colour Management" option in C1 (think that's what it's called - doing it from memory!). Once you've highlighted a PEF file you can choose the camera profile from the drop down list - try some of the others (even non Pentax ones give interesting results!).

C1 is one of the only RAW convertors to manage colour in this way, and the guy behind it really, really knows colour theory (RSP had it with the "ColorEngine", done by the same person as C1, but as you know I don't rate the RSP output very highly.)

I had another quick look at SilkyPix, and couldn't find anything regarding colour profiling except for the monitor - that's bad in my book

C1 isn't perfect, but what it does it does extraordinarily well
Matt

Matt,

Picking up one of your points;

Silkypix presumably has built-in colour profiles for each supported camera, and I imagine it reads the EXIF data to determine which profile to use. This is a more fool-proof method than asking the user to select the appropriate profile, as C1 requires.

The fact that you can't change profiles is presumably not a problem if the one Silkypix provides is accurate. And because of the Pentax tie-up, I would expect the Pentax profiles to be spot-on.

G

George,

Capture One also detects the EXIF information for the camera. There isn't really any such thing as a "bang on" profile. It's very subjective. The "bang on" profile usually gives really "eurgh" flat results, and a clinical image.

C1 allows you to override the default and apply a profile for the given job in hand. And it does make a difference - sometimes subtle, but definitely a difference. The pro version also allows manual creation of profiles - so you can fine tune a profile's response.

As a simple "for instance", there's a black and white profile available for C1 (I can dig out a link) that makes C1 completely black and white through and through - it's great

Most, if not all, the RAW convertors use a simplistic conversion between the colour spaces. dcRAW does this and comments that the values given were provided by Adobe. From what I've seen of convertors I reckon they mostly use these figures.

As far as I can tell, SilkyPix doesn't ship with any colour profiles so it can't have anything Pentax specific... not that it won't, but colour is a tricky business, and something of a "black art" (excusing the obvious pun!)

I'll double check the installation of SP and the resources it uses, but I'm pretty certain that profiles are not on its list. But that shouldn't stop most users from trying it - it's only geek-heads like me that get all up tight

Matt

Matt,

If SP doesn't have camera-specific profiles, then surely:

1 The resuts would be pretty poor, and
2 The program would work with any camera.

In fact, they state that results with unsupported cameras will be dire, and many people reckon that SP's colour is amongst the best - unlikely if they don't use profiles, I should have thought.

However, I might well be wrong!

But I do agree that the ability to amend profiles or write your own is a pretty good feature.

G

Just because it's digital doesn't remove the need for the good old gray card. Buy one, cut it into smaller bits, and include it in every lighting situation that you shoot with. Even if you need to take an extra frame (is that word still relevant?) it's worth the effort.

George,
I measured the AF360 flash with and without the Stofen using both the QPcard and the Expodisc.

Here are the values that you can punch into C1 (shown as color temperature/tint):

AF360 straight:
Expodisc 11800K/31
QPcard 13600K/29

AF360 and Stofen:
Expodisc 7000K/15
QPcard 7100K/11

(I haven't performed these tests with the wide angle panel or the catch light panel - the values will probably be slightly different.)

These values work better than the camera's flash WB setting And I'd go with the Expodisc settings, rather than the QPcard.
These values look great using the "Pentax istD generic V2" profile in Capture One.

I generally never touch the "Color balance correction" wheel, and leave it at Hue=0, Sat=0. My profile (not the generic one) seems to give almost Velvia like response and I always get great results with a good WB.

Hope that helps!
Matt

Matt,

Please keep us posted with your 'very nice news'; having just got C1 LE, I'm adjusting contrast and saturation at the moment (still playing), but a profile with a bit more 'oomph' would be nice.

Oh, and if you've got that link to the B&W profile, that would be nice.

Cheers,
Dan

Dan,
I certainly will keep you posted

Here's one, but it's not the one I had in mind:
http://www.phaseone.com/upload/captureone_creativeprofiles_002.pdf
(The Pro demo will still let you edit profiles )

I think this was it:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_08/essay.html
The profile is linked in the page, but it's here:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_08/profile_BW.zip

Have fun

Matt

slightly off-topic, but it does refer to silky-pix. The new pentax browser and laboratory progs using Silky-pix are an improvement over the previous versions in quality and what one can adjust. But (and there is always a 'but'!) - in browser, when saving as a DNG file, it gives me a file over twice the size of one converted with the Adobe DNG converter. I thought the whole idea of DNG was that it was the same file throughout?!!

Any thoughts?

Andy

Here are the Canadian and US links for the new Pentax browser with Silkypix:

http://www.pentax.ca/support/digital/index.php

just pick your camera model

http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/software_firmware?sfFlag=s

I downloaded mine today - now to try it out.

Hope the links work.

Mike

Andy,
The Adobe DNG format allows for compressed and uncompressed versions. For instance the Samsung 815 (?) uses uncompressed DNG. The Adobe DNG Converter will allow both options, but defaults to compressed.

BTW, the compression is lossless (unlike JPG), so the only downside of the compression is time - it takes significant time to compress (which on a PC is negligible).

Hope that explains it!
Matt

Thanks Matt (as ever!)

So the Pentax Browser does not allow compression of DNG. Also, RawShooter does not open the Pentax DNG, but does the Adobe converted one!

Andy