For b&w conversion, DXO or Silver Efex Pro?

[DavidRabinowitz]

is Silver Efex just a substitute for learning how to use tools available in photoshop? can one work more effectively if they learn about channel blending and other advanced bw conversion methods in photoshop?

[Nowhereman]

No.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Nowhereman]

Further to my last post, you might want to have a look at this article by John Thawley on how different the workflow is using Aperture

or Lightroom, to using Photoshop by <a href="http://www.johnthawley.com/journal/2008/8/16/wrapping-your-head-around-

workflow.html"><u>clicking here</u>.</a> But, if you have Photoshop you can use Silver Efex with it seemlessly, However, Silver Efex does not work

with Lightroom.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[robert goldstein]

<p><em>"is Silver Efex just a substitute for learning how to use tools available in photoshop? can one work more effectively if they learn about channel blending and other advanced bw conversion methods in photoshop?"</em></p>

<p>Silver Efex and all other plug-ins can do no more than harness the underlying capabilities of Photoshop. But when they allow one to get superb (and possibly superior) results with relative ease, why should one not embrace them?</p>

<p>I have used a variety of methods for B&W conversion, but Silver Efex is undoubtedly the best and channel mixer the worst. (OK, it is better than simple desaturation.) I had great results with Lightroom as well, but I much prefer Silver Efex. It has many of the wonderful Nik Software tools that I would just not want to be without. Toning presets are true duotones, and very easy to select and adjust. </p>

<p>I expect that for many users, Silver Efex may be a gateway program to the whole suite of Nik products. </p>

<p>Rob</p>

[stuart_meyer]

<p>I've been using a 15 day trial of SE Pro 2.0 now for 3 days and can't for the life of me understand why it would do a better job than LR 3. I must need to get into the fine details of the various sliders. Is the U Point technology the one thing that LR 3 can't do that SE shines at? I'm going to keep plugging away, but I seem to do things much faster in LR 3. I don't do a lot of landscapes, mostly weddings. Maybe that's why I'm not getting it. I don't want to miss out on a good thing.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>After years of using channel mixer, then later mostly adjusting color channels in 'raw' before moving over to Photoshop, I decided to try Silver Efex Pro 2.0. </p>

<p>There are certain times when you want and need to control various channels. A 'red' in your color version that turns out black when you want a gray tone, may end up a black in Silver Efex Pro's output but not when you're mixing channels to taste, either from 'raw', channel mixer or from Photoshop's 'black and white' conversion. </p>

<p>In fact, black and white conversion in photoshop probably is best for this kind of conversion, where you must emphasize or de-emphasize the unwelcome tones of one color in your color version, and Silver Efex Pro, in my experience is not so much help.</p>

<p>I no longer convert to black and white from Photoshop's Adobe Raw Converter, doing all my conversions to black and white within the Photoshop image editor itself, not the 'raw' plug-in.</p>

<p>One problem with using the check the box grayscale conversion in 'raw' is that it converts to grayscale, awhile Lightjet and other digital printing equipment requires a three-color channel; my (very famous) printer, has advised me to avoid grayscale conversions if I with to print using a Lightjet, or he says a workaround is to re-convert a grayscale into three colors again -- just an extra bit of work. His printing firm uses two major brands of hi-speed, hi--quality printers, for printing digital files, and both require three-color sources, so grayscale is out without re-converting the file to a three-color file, he told me. </p>

<p>He also said they upscale everything to (I forget the exact number) 700+ dpi before printing . . . . which thoroughly surprised me. </p>

<p>But for everyday work, I'm simply stunned by the work that I can produce by using Silver Efex Pro 2.0+, and how fast and simply it works and adjusts, when the other methods are not absolutely required, and it does not convert my output to grayscale at the end -- a happy result.</p>

<p>The Nik U-Point technology not only is seductive, it actually works, and for that alone the software bears an investment. Sure you could build the same effects doing 'layers' but that's sooo much extra work, and the plug-in works so effortlessly . . . . . it has saved me so much time, and lately I've been getting something I didn't get before -- some compliments on my black and white tonalities (I'm hardly a digital darkroom genius, which may be well known among those who follow my work, as I prefer far more to shoot, but having better output is icing on my cake!).</p>

<p>As far as film is concerned, if I want a 'film look' I'll shoot film. But then I believe in doing things 'naturally', unless and until I become a 'wage slave' for some art director who has a specific look he/she wants to emulate . . . . but a limited budget.</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I put in another vote for Silver Efex Pro. I am working with version 2, and have had many compliments on my B&W images from friends, as well as fellow photographers in the club I am a member of. I remember playing with B&W conversions in LR, and found it more work, and I was never as happy as I am now with SEP. Ultimately, you have to make the decision, and there are a lot of options out there. Here is an image I took in Downtown Vancouver in front of the Art Gallery steps.</p><div></div>