On 3/4/2011 11:00 PM, Bulent Celasun wrote:
I think Jostein's below comment explains why SilkyPix developer
produces a better looking output:
It might be that SilkyPix' understanding of proprietary data gives it an edge
in the processing.
I use LightZone and still like it very much. However,
in spite of my attempts at slight exposure compensation (using K20D)
to expose to the right,
LightZone displays the default images as 1/2 stops or more underexposed.
They simply look lifeless at first sight.
The same pef files look different (properly exposed) under SilkyPix.
Chiming in here. Bulent, personally I resolved to using LightRoom which
I find consistent and convenient. I am thinking that the "curves" that
you mention are somewhat similar to the secret ingredients of fine
chefs. I don't think that you can absolutely match the way one piece of
RAW software makes it happen on the other such software. You can try to
do so my trial and error or by shooting some very controlled shots (such
as color targets under well defined lighting) and work from there, but
personally I think it will be a bit of a Sisyphus' labor.
My understanding that more recent Pentax own software is based on
SilkyPix engine. It therefore would stand to reason that SilkyPix would
have a bit of 'advantage' over others, but like I said - LR does it for
me and LR 3.0 was a very welcome improvement in debayering algorithm and
other aspects of processing.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
