Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 5.0.50 K3 PEF Support

For those interested in playing with K3 PEF sample images, the latest version of SilkyPix Developer Studio Pro supports K3 PEFs

link

Regards - Steve

Having had another look at the Pentax version there are two things which I haven't found in SDS, #1 The straighten tool for leveling horizon #2 A crop tool.
Are these in the 'full' version? There is a good discount available for this software.
Also is it better to shoot in PEF with a Pentax camera?

Rotation tool in operation will straighten and trimming tool will crop
and DNG will be okay for raw files. My k30 will not do PEF files as far as I know.
Very rarely use SDS anyway as I find it just to much hassle

I think that's why I installed it then forgot about it

The PDCU5 supplied with the K-3 is a bit of a poor effort as far as I can see. Yes it has some decent tools like the noise reduction for example, but it is so clunky and so slow. The only reason I use it is to identify the RAW images as my old version of Adobe Bridge doesn't display the thumbnails on the K-3 DNG files. I'm running a very fast Core I-7 laptop with loads of RAM and PDCU5 is still pretty slow. Also, the user interface is poor.

Regarding PEF files, can anyone tell us why we would want to use these in preference to DNG's? I can't think of any reasons, perhaps I am missing something?

Regards
David

Is Pentax still keeping that cr*p alive? PDCU5 is Silkypix run through the destructive hands of Pentax' software hacks? I thought they were supplying the original Silkypix, just not the latest incarnation.

The one thing I use PDCU for is browsing through DNG files in full screen view. It is the best for that IMO. Then there is lens correction (of RAW files). And this is where I have a question: Is Lightroom and the full Photoshop the only other options to have that feature? I have Elements and that doesn't.

As for PEF vs. DNG. I don't know. Perhaps some are nervous about what Adobe will do in future - find more aggressive ways to moneytize it or leave it to die if they find it is not worth the trouble? I do think DNG requires are bit more processing but with a relatively recent computer that shouldn't be much of an issue.

This sort of ignorant stuff is hardly helpful. It would be better to step back and consider how PDCU relates both to other RAW converters and to the cameras themselves.

PDCU is not intended to act as some sort of 'Silkypix Lite' freebie - the interface layout is designed to represent the key image editing features of the cameras. In this way it mimics certain of the menu items and custom image control as laid out on the camera LCD interface - this is the extent of the 'destructive hands of Pentax software hacks'.

The approach is obviously intended to allow users to retrospectively apply camera settings (plus a few extras) to their RAW files in case of error in setting up the camera for the shoot, or if not using JPEGs and you like the camera menu controls.

Just because many more experienced users don't process in this manner (eg using Lightroom or something else & don't apply camera custom settings) doesn't of itself mean the approach is poor or inferior. Many people report excellent output results from PDCU once it is understood.

I do think if Joe S had omitted the first pararaph of his posting it may have been of more use. He did say he thought it was good for browsing dng files.

I think Steve's post was referring to the full Silkypix Developer Pro which can be had at a discount price if you enter when ordering the serial number of a qualifying Pentax camera.

And a hello to you, MacGregor. I write 3 paragraphs, one of them is a critique of Pentax. I understand what you are saying. I don't agree with that approach. I wrote some arguments in favour of my view, but came to think it is not worth it. I rarely hear people express their love of the program, so take comfort in knowing I am not alone.

The thing is, I think PDCU could have been an excellent program of great use to us. With alogoriths tuned to Pentax cameras colour characterics and with a feature (lens correction) that you otherwise have to support Adobe to get. All they had to do was to stay closer to the source (of a consumer program). Like Ricoh did and like Samsung did. Now it is deliberately crippled and I am dissappointed and expresses that in words. Where I come from that is still legal, even encouraged.

The fact is, according to their website Pentax put "Silkypix Lite" in the boxes of some of their cameras: the Qs, k01, k-30. Now I am trying to think of good reasons why users of these cameras don't deserve the same stripped down program. If K3 was supplied with Silkypix I would have considered it a bonus.

I know this is going off at a tangent somewhat, but I have a K-01 and hence have the proper 'Silkypix Developer Studio' that was supplied with it. To be honest, I haven't used it yet, but I'm interested in learning it. Does anyone know whether I could get this software to work with K-3 DNG files as it currently won't recognise them?

Regards
David

Hi David. You can't. It is restricted to only work with certain cameras. In theory Pentax could update the program to accept more models but that has not been their approach so far.

The company behind Silkypix would be happy to take your money for the full program - and then we are back, full circle, at Steve's original post

Hello to Joel too I can only respond to specific points that you actually write down - you said that PDCU (specifically) was c..p and had been run through the 'destructive hands of Pentax hacks'. I appreciate you see some use in the program (as a file browser & viewer), but that's not the core of it, and probably not the reason that some dislike it.

I've never avoided the fact that it is commonly disliked - my point is simply that this is due to misunderstanding of its intention and functioning, which is really very different to other RAW converters, Silkypix included. As I have said many times, it is not laid out in any way like a typical RAW file program, but is structured more to reflect and the in-camera controls and menu items that 'edit' files.

I just felt your comment was a bit unfair without placing it in the full context. Once people have learnt to navigate around the interface in a logical way, many have found PDCU to produce excellent images. I use 3 or 4 different converters, and I still consistently find PDCU 4 provides the highest quality results. I would qualify this by saying this is limited to those shots not requiring 'major surgery' - in fact, anything that could have been set and output from the camera can be achieved with better quality in glorious 16bit from PDCU.

I don't really see why camera makers should be expected to provide free sophisticated RAW software, a very specialized thing. What Pentax have given us is very good at what it needs to do.

"Cr*p" is of course pushing it. I just think it could have been better. I honestly think the interface is dated, and apart from that I think it is a bad start to restrict yourself to functionality from at camera, which has a very challenged interface to begin with. I am sorry, but if it was released as open source it would not make it IMO to an established user base.

You write: "I don't really see why camera makers should be expected to provide free sophisticated RAW software, a very specialized thing. What Pentax have given us is very good at what it needs to do."

This is a good point we could discuss for a long time (but wouldn't make us popular). Contrary to your opinion, I think Pentax (now Ricoh) should think about how they can make the total experience of being a Pentax user better. Because, lets face it, they don't have any technological advantages compared to the big boys. Requesting us to use 2 different programs as David Storm is not a good start and I would not blame David if he decides, it's just not worth it, and sticks to a product from Adobe. Remember, in each case Pentax is already paying for the Silkypix license anyway. Why not make that an attraction instead of an alibi (hey, we need to put something in the box).

Around the time I purchased my K10 circa early 2008 Silkypix was generally regarded on this forum as the software to use for RAW conversions. Adobe had not really got their act together with Lightroom and Photoshop was ACR/Photoshop was not really much better. The Silkypix interface was always clunky and certainly not very intuitive, but the output was really good if you stuck with it.

The version of Silkypix bundled with Pentax cameras was always a cut down version. It became more so when ISL split Silkpix into 2 products.

Adobe made big strides forward with LR 3 and more so with noise reduction in 4 and 5 takes it a step further to the extent that it is now my RAW convertor of choice.

The Developer Studio Pro version of Silkypix does most of what LR does, but you have to work at it and the interface is still very clunky, though it runs quite well on a very antiquated PC that I installed it on.

I downloaded the trial version of Silkypix because I wanted to play with some K3 PEFs. I have a fondness for PEFs over DNG that probably goes beyond logic, so do not ask me to explain it.

Regards - Steve

I don't deny that the PDCU interface could be improved - in fact to do its job better it certainly could be updated in look, and should ideally resemble more closely the actual camera LCD views that a lot of it represents.

We could debate what camera makers should give their customers - as Steve said above historically there weren't the choices available like now. We expect any RAW converter now to open any file, and if it won't we demand updates.

There's plenty of room for PDCU to be used alongside or alternating with other RAW software. I believe for many photographers, perhaps those who normally shoot JPEGs, then PDCU could be a valuable aid or backup.

With JPEGs you would want to get the shot as correct straight from the camera, so these shooters would be more likely to spend time setting the various correction and custom image settings, as well as taking care with WB and dynamic range - all of which is controllable on the camera. But for those problamatic shots, or when there wasn't time to get it all set before taking the shot, then you could shoot RAW also and use PDCU to carry out high quality fine tuning, with very similar controls and options to what you are used to on the camera.

This purpose and function is very different to a 'normal' RAW workflow, where another converter would be more appropriate.