![]() ![]() The results from Silkypix are a lot better, and I’ve found my efficiency to be comparable to Adobe’s better UI-the basic functions are highly similar. Silkypix addresses all of these downsides, with additional benefits of Fuji film simulations and very useful/different/orthogonal raw development functions that are missing in PS. In spite of this, Photoshop has its own list of annoyances, including inferior XTRANS demosaicing algorithms, CC licensing fees, abandoned raw support for existing non-CC licenses, and inferior denoising, sharpening, and processing tools without add-ons like the (now free) Nik Collection. Many people familiar with PS (like me) immediately dismissed Silkypix, which is admittedly a lot quirkier than PS. There are many good reasons to choose PS, not least of which is the software’s ergonomic efficiency and layout. For those weighing their options, I’ve listed my pros and cons, and a few notes on the Silkypix workflow. ![]() I decided to adopt Silkypix RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 2.0 over my longstanding Adobe Photoshop workflow. ![]() I revisited my raw development workflow after upgrading to an X-Pro2 (love it). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |