the RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 powered by SILKYPIX is not bad at all.

jyc860923

Veteran
Aug 29, 2018
104
Shenyang, China
贾一川
For those who don't know Fuji provides its users with outdated versions of Silkypix raw converter (Panasonic does too), basically it's the type of software that you try and then uninstall, the raw file type support is limited, the functions are also too limited to be useful, until now.

I don't know how many have tried it, the 3.0 version based on Silkypix 8.x, but with X-Trans raw files, if you disable the default sharpening and save that as the default preset, I don't think it's bad at all. I've compared the results to CaptureOne Express for Fuji 12.0 and X-Transformer, it's very close to C1E without sharpening but with colour tone very close to that from the X-Transformer.

The raw file I used for comparison is from DPReview, so I'm not uploading the results you can test for yourself.

I want to point out even though without sharpening the results may seem a bit soft, it's mostly artifacts rather than details we are seeing with sharpening, even for the X-Transformer.
 

muzee

Veteran
Apr 30, 2013
103
I've had good results with SilkyPix for Pentax as well. It took a while, but once I got used to its features and limitations, it was my go to for quick edits.

OTOH, The one shipped with the Ricoh - (Digital Camera Utility), is just bad: nothing like the Silky Pix 3 interface and rather clunky. I've turned to DarkTable for the GRii files.
 

jyc860923

Veteran
Aug 29, 2018
104
Shenyang, China
贾一川
I've had good results with SilkyPix for Pentax as well. It took a while, but once I got used to its features and limitations, it was my go to for quick edits.

OTOH, The one shipped with the Ricoh - (Digital Camera Utility), is just bad: nothing like the Silky Pix 3 interface and rather clunky. I've turned to DarkTable for the GRii files.
Glad to hear it works for you. That brings up the potential problem though, and the same applies to C1E for Fuji or Sony, if you're using the free version that locks down raw format support, and you can't install the same software for another brand and keep them both, you'll have to use another raw converter.
 

muzee

Veteran
Apr 30, 2013
103
Glad to hear it works for you. That brings up the potential problem though, and the same applies to C1E for Fuji or Sony, if you're using the free version that locks down raw format support, and you can't install the same software for another brand and keep them both, you'll have to use another raw converter.
Hmm ... I never had that issue. I believe I had the Fuji and Pentax versions installed at the same time; and both worked fine.
 

Christop82

Regular
May 2, 2017
34
I'm not an expert at editing, but darktable seems to handle raws from fuji and sony very well. For a free utility it's great. I can't compare it to silkypix or C1E, but I do prefer it to Rawtherapee.
 

jyc860923

Veteran
Aug 29, 2018
104
Shenyang, China
贾一川
I'm not an expert at editing, but darktable seems to handle raws from fuji and sony very well. For a free utility it's great. I can't compare it to silkypix or C1E, but I do prefer it to Rawtherapee.
Thanks, I may give darktable a try some time. I think I read somewhere saying the Iridient X-Transformer is using open source raw converter with some tweaked settings, really it's just Adobe that doesn't do well with X-trans files nowadays.
 

ricks

Veteran
Nov 23, 2010
103
I was wondering if you had used EX2.0 before EX3.0 . I downloaded the 3.0 yesterday, and immediately noticed the different interface, but did not find much difference between the tools or the presets. Probably because I am used to 2.0 I prefer its interface, a less cluttered screen. I am wondering if I am missing some other benefits of 3.0 Thanks for any information.
 

jyc860923

Veteran
Aug 29, 2018
104
Shenyang, China
贾一川
I was wondering if you had used EX2.0 before EX3.0 . I downloaded the 3.0 yesterday, and immediately noticed the different interface, but did not find much difference between the tools or the presets. Probably because I am used to 2.0 I prefer its interface, a less cluttered screen. I am wondering if I am missing some other benefits of 3.0 Thanks for any information.
I haven't really used 2.0 (silkypix 4.x) that much, but I think from Silkypix 4.x to 8.x should make enough difference, the 3.0 has very nice colour as well as other basic tools, but lacks local adjustments and to be honest the performance isn't good if you're using a multi-core PC, in most cases the workload isn't threaded. I still like it, just that it's not a fully featured product.
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
RFC 3.0 (vs EX vs other versions?) is okay, if they did a better job converting the technical controls into English. Right now, it's a challenge for the average user to understand the controls alone. Does it get better over time? Probably. I stuck through it, and I consider myself somewhat of a Post-Processing power user from a knowledge level, but darn was it frustrating to understand what each control did - and yes, I have a particular Dissonance still everytime I see the "Taste" control.
 

jyc860923

Veteran
Aug 29, 2018
104
Shenyang, China
贾一川
RFC 3.0 (vs EX vs other versions?) is okay, if they did a better job converting the technical controls into English. Right now, it's a challenge for the average user to understand the controls alone. Does it get better over time? Probably. I stuck through it, and I consider myself somewhat of a Post-Processing power user from a knowledge level, but darn was it frustrating to understand what each control did - and yes, I have a particular Dissonance still everytime I see the "Taste" control.
You said it better than I could about the user friendliness issue, I was always thinking "maybe this is how a Japanese company designs things". It certainly needs more effort to soften the edges.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom