All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Attn Matt - Silkypix at 10/08/2006 - 10:40
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
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
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Attn Matt - Silkypix at 08/08/2006 - 00:48
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
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
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Attn Matt - Silkypix at 07/08/2006 - 17:21
Quote:
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).
Thanks.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).
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.
Quote:
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 Matt
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.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 Matt
With that exception, the workflow seems pretty good.
G
Quote:
Let me know if I've missed anything
Matt
Let me know if I've missed anything
Matt
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Attn Matt - Silkypix at 07/08/2006 - 15:51
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
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
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Attn Matt - Silkypix at 06/08/2006 - 23:39
Nah, she was Asian.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Anesthesia at 09/08/2006 - 23:52
Totally agree.
The more expensive the lens, the more reason to avoid a filter because then you are compromising the superior optical quality you have paid so much for.
Protective filters are only good for protecting lenses that aren't worth protecting.
Of course, if you are subjecting the lens to unusual and unpleasant conditions, then a protective filter may make sense. But in normal circumstances, if you value the lens, don't spoil it with a filter.
G
The more expensive the lens, the more reason to avoid a filter because then you are compromising the superior optical quality you have paid so much for.
Protective filters are only good for protecting lenses that aren't worth protecting.
Of course, if you are subjecting the lens to unusual and unpleasant conditions, then a protective filter may make sense. But in normal circumstances, if you value the lens, don't spoil it with a filter.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on 2xConverter at 22/08/2006 - 21:57
Steve,
Have you ever used a Pentax tc on a good Pentax lens?
G
Have you ever used a Pentax tc on a good Pentax lens?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on 2xConverter at 17/08/2006 - 11:21
All the Pentax t/cs are excellent, but of course it pays to use a good lens to start with.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on 2xConverter at 14/08/2006 - 23:48
One strong rumour which wasn't mentioned was the possibility that new long lenses will have in-lens focussing.
If so, I think that we can assume that the new body will be fully compatible with existing AF lenses but that it will also function with the new ILF lenses. They, presumably, would have to be used in MF on older bodies.
The rumour is given credibility by the fact that no long DA lenses have been produced so far. They are presumably (if the rumour is true) being held back until there is a body that can use their new focussing system.
An article in BJP, reporting on a meeting with a senior Pentax person, said that the new body would not be a full Pro camera (like the LX), so full sealing sounds unlikely.
However, all reports of meetings with Pentax people suggest that Pentax is pretty pleased with the new body, and expect it to be very well received.
G
If so, I think that we can assume that the new body will be fully compatible with existing AF lenses but that it will also function with the new ILF lenses. They, presumably, would have to be used in MF on older bodies.
The rumour is given credibility by the fact that no long DA lenses have been produced so far. They are presumably (if the rumour is true) being held back until there is a body that can use their new focussing system.
An article in BJP, reporting on a meeting with a senior Pentax person, said that the new body would not be a full Pro camera (like the LX), so full sealing sounds unlikely.
However, all reports of meetings with Pentax people suggest that Pentax is pretty pleased with the new body, and expect it to be very well received.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on any sign of real "new" Pentax at 02/08/2006 - 11:23
But they were dashed again. Although the new Laboratory product is a slight improvement on the old, it is NOT Silkypix, and has few more processing options than the original version.
So, it's back to trying to decide whether the things I like about Silkypix (the real one) outweigh the advantages of Capture One.
I shall try Matt's suggestions over the next few days.
G