RSE vs Silkypix again (RAW converters)

[Norm in Fujino]

I think I've mentioned before my feeling that RSE doesn't seem to do justice to mid-range greens, and today I decided to do another test. We got a direct hit by a typhoon yesterday, so the mountain stream was full of water today. I took this shot just before evening, 2 seconds at F8, ISO 100 (Olympus E-300, 14-54 lens).
I ran them through both RSE and Silkypix 2.0 (beta) trying to see how close I could get them to turn out. Obviously, it's impossible to get all the parameters equal in these two very different programs and their different range of controls, but once again, I find Silkypix head and shoulders over SRE, particularly when it comes to reproducing midrange color tones. These may not seem so apparent in reduced size on the monitor, but I printed them out on B4 glossy paper, and differences in areas like the moss on the rock at right are striking. The RSE results are much muddier or flat looking, despite the fact I used "outdoor medium" setting, which is usually quite contrasty.


Here are the results:
First, SRE:
http://www2.gol.com/users/nhavens/resource/P8261104-01usm1a.jpg

Next, Silkypix 2.0 (beta)
http://www2.gol.com/users/nhavens/resource/P8261104usm1a.jpg

The RSE version may be a bit darker in overall exposure comp, but the lack of contrast in the green moss is what strikes me. It just seems much easier to produce nice contrasty midtone greens with Silkypix than with RSE. I still like RSE for its speed and some of its controls, but Silkypix has almost the same speed and handling ease, and IMHO it's much easier to control in terms of color. I wish Olympus Studio/Master were faster to operate since they'd no doubt be prime contenders in terms of color, but Master is just toooo slow.

--

[ml55]

Attention:
Ichikawa Soft Laboratory, is now offering a new SILKYPIX 2.0 beta for Mac users. please go to www.silkypix.com to download a copy. Enjoy.

SY.

[Spot focus]

Hi Norm thanks for the comparison, I'm looking to get a raw converter. I have downloaded trial versions of both RSE & Silkpix. I find RSE a litte easier to use but havent explored the potential of Silkpix nice to see a Pro at work ;)

[D70FAN]

Norm, I think it is really camera dependent, and find that Nikon Capture works better for the D70 than either RSE or Silkypix. But I have to agree that Silkypix has an edge over RSE. But RSE is very quick. Too bad these guys can't all get together and make something that is perfect. ;)

Great pictures incidentally. I'll bet that the B4 print looked great. I find that posting most of my shots doesn't do them justice. Printed Super B adds a whole new dimension.

[ReF]

the silkypix version seems a little too purple with some blown highlights, but overall looks much better than the RSE version. i too use several different RAW converters. RSE and Adobe RAW opens the image at completely different settings than the parameters that the picture was actually shot with, so it's a bit annoying to fiddle with multiple adjustment just to get certain pictures to look like they should have to begin with. i especially have problems with proper color reproduction when it comes to sunsets. a lot of times i just end up using the free canon coverter. making adjustments with the canon converter is time consuming among other problems, but at least the colors come out right from the begining. adobe raw is actually pretty nice when the colors are okay to start with, and the noise reduction tools are handy too. RSE is actually a nice free stand-in for the adobe version, but among the three RSE is my least favorite. for the canon users out there, a while back i tried a trial of breeze browser, and was quite please with it. colors come out very similar to the canon converter with easier fine tuning. i'm not sure what i'd think of it now though, having used RSE and adobe RAW. btw it should work for non-canon RAW files as well, i think. overall, i think it's good to have several or at least two RAW converters at hand. if one program isn't doing the job right, trying another program can sometimes give results that blow away the junk. i wouldn't use one program exclusively, at least not at this point.

[Norm in Fujino]

i wouldn't use one program exclusively, at least not at this point.

That's always true; different programs give better results for different purposes--and as I've repeated in several other placed, for different cameras. There's a certain logic that the camera manufacturer should be able to produce the best developer for its files, so as George says, he likes Nikon Capture for Nikon files, and some people like Olympus Studio for Oly files. Most of the people I've heard in the Oly camp who have tried Silkypix, however, feel that it is very close to Studio in its color handling, and much superior in general operational ease and flexibility.
The magenta and exposure issues you mention are the fault of the user (me) not the program. I deliberately shifted the magenta slightly up in the quickly done version above, just to add a bit of warmth, and probably blew out some highlights on the leaves by raising the exposure--however, Silkypix has a highlight fine tuner (I haven't even played with it yet) that is supposed to be great for adjusting those. I'll have to go back and work on the "negative" again.