Now that you mention it, Bulent, it was the K-20D that turned me away from LightZone. It worked reasonably well with the K-10D, but turned the shadow areas of K-20D raw files into mush. The noise handling was very poor too, I ended up buying NoiseNinja for Photoshop (CS3 I think it was) to compensate. I also recall that LZ tended to destroy brand-specific information in the EXIF like lens names and camera model names. If memory serves me, it was LZ v3.0.
After thinking long and hard about DAM, I ended up going with the majority and bought LightRoom. :-) Jostein 2011/3/4 Bulent Celasun <[email protected]>: > Darren, Bob, Brian, Jostein, > > Thank you all very much for your extensive and informative replies. > > 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. > > I guess I can make it sing somewhat like SilkyPix by tweaking its tools. > Its "styles" can work more or less like "presets". > > Anyway, your comments were most helpful for me to understand the issues > better. > > Bulent > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
