I have been pretty tough on Silkypix as a "raw" processor at times. For a camera/lens combination supported by DxO Optics Pro - particularly in the case of the supported 1/1.7 Inch image-sensor compacts such as the Panasonic DMC-LX3 (and likely the Canon G10/G11/S90) that have small lens-systems having more optical distortions/aberrations than larger and higher quality lens-systems, I find DxO (with it's comprehensive automatic optical corrections - particularly the wonderful and unique "Lens Softness" correction that uses deconvolution deblurring to deliver excellent image-detail) to be a better alternative. I have also (on another internet forum) pointed out what appear to be some troubling low-level processing noise/artifacts present in all versions of Silkypix when either high ISO Sensitivity (or simply low signal/noise ratio) "raw" image-files are processed. Silkypix appears to be capable of reproducing more (potentially desirable) "signal" at lower tone-levels than DxO Optics Pro, but it appears that these differences may (also) carry with them related consequences of increased levels of low-level processing noise/artifacts. Thus, Silkypix appears to perform at it's best when "raw" image-files recorded by cameras with higher dynamic-ranges (and closely related higher signal/noise ratios). All things have their strong points.
However, (since DxO does not, and never will, support Panasonic DMC-FZ50 RAW image-files), I have been trying my hand at processing the above posted two DMC-FZ50 RAW shots with various alternatives that do support the DMC-FZ50 RAW image-files.
First, some freeware options. Raw Therapee 2.41 crashes all the time on my particular PC system, so it is (unfortunately) not a possibility for me. I have found UFRaw 0.17 (a plug-in for GIMP) to be fairly good with processing certain DMC-FZ50 images (of things like urban scenes and architecture), but falling short where it comes the above posted two landscape nature shots (which a representative of the kind of images that I seek to use my DMC-FZ50 to photograph). And, UFRaw (like many applications) requires that various elements of the processing be addressed in separate adjustment interfaces that cannot be simultaneously activated.
In my loss-less post-processing of JPG image-files (using PaintShop Pro 9.01), I was able to develop a systematic approach of applying successive adjustment interfaces (Brightness, Color adjustment using RGB histogram stretching and Saturation, Highlight/Midtone/Shadow adjustment, followed by re-sampling to the final pixel-size, and Unsharp Masking). However, I find that this "one adjustment at a time" approach really does not seem to work well when processing "raw" image-files. A user-interface that allows for multiple adjustments to be made on "raw" image-files (without having to switch back and forth between individual adjustment interfaces), where the composite result upon the processed image of those (simultaneous and interacting) adjustment-settings can be more easily viewed evaluated is a very big plus, indeed. Both DxO Optics Pro and Silkypix offer this capability (as I suspect other moderate/higher priced "raw" processors very likely, or at least ought to, do).
I have never used Lightroom (or other "raw" processing applications), so I am no position to comment on their assets/liabilities. Please feel free to comment on their relative merits ...
Trying out two low-cost 16-bit software applications that support "raw" processing (Artizen 2.86 and Sagelight 3.102), I am driven crazy by both programs "one user-adjustment interface at a time" functionality. It seems (to me) to be a user-interface approach for masochists only! Sagelight goes even farther - by seeming (thanks to it's developer's personalized "recipe") to
require that I adjust the Gamma correction
first (not at all something that I want to do!). Only then was I allowed to proceed to a subsequent "one user-adjustment interface at a time" functionality. If these applications are (perhaps) able to achieve desirable results in their "raw" processing, I do not have the patience to painstakingly search for it - having been spoiled by better user-interfaces.
In revisiting Silkypix (the 3.104 SE Version for Panasonic only, and Pro 4.x), there are a number of good things that I do like about their interfaces. Where it comes to processing DMC-LX3 RW2 image-files, their image-quality of their output falls short of DxO Optics Pro (due in no small part to DxO's comprehensive automatic optical corrections, deconvolution deblurring Sharpening, and superior Noise Reduction technology). However, in the case of the significantly higher quality DMC-FZ50 Leica lens-system, the DxO optical corrections are less necessary. Where it comes to Noise Reduction, I am resigned to limit the ISO Sensitivity of the DMC-FZ50 in RAW mode to a modest level of 200 anyway (which allows for adequate NR in Silkypix by using the "False Color Correction" control only, without using the other NR tools). (In fairness), I have yet to try Silkypix Pro's allegedly enhanced abilities to (in part) separate chrominance and luminance noise reduction functions. Perhaps some improvement has been made? I will be evaluating that possibility. It would be truly wonderful if I could record DMC-FZ50 RAWs at ISO=400 ... but I am not holding my breath on that one. The signal/noise ratio of the DMC-FZ50's 1/1.7 Inch image-sensor appears to be on the order of up to 1.0 EV (or "stop") worse than the more recently manufactured DMC-LX3 (and other) image-sensors of the same approximate physical size. As I am such a stickler for retaining fine image-details, it may be that the Silkypix Pro Noise Reduction tool-set will not be able to tame the DMC-FZ50 at ISO=400. However, I am open to being pleasantly surprised, and will report further if it is the case that the Silkypix Pro Noise Reduction tools represent significant improvement.
While I have not (yet, at least) realized significant performance improvements in Silkypix Pro 4.x relative to Silkypix 3.x SE (when using the user-controls that are common to both versions), there are some welcome improvements in the user-interface. I particularly like Pro version's improved Tone-Curve tool, and it's ability to display the resultant net effect of the Contrast control settings upon the composite tone-curve! Despite some of my frustrations with Silkypix color-rendering of Green-ish hues (and the necessity to utilize "Fine Color Controller" fairly extensively in order to try to realize the kind of color that I am looking for), and despite the limitations of Silkypix Sharpening tools (relative to DxO Optics Pro's "Lens Softness", which has spoiled me for all eternity), I feel some responsibility to "give credit where credit is due" to the well-developed, friendly, and useful Silkypix user-interface in general relative to (at least some) of the alternatives.
