Nik software. Does it still make sense in 2016?

gordonjb · March 31, 2016

I started using Nik software the first time Goggle offered it for free, which was a few years back. While I do not often use any of the "canned" presets I often use various tools from the different programs and Silver efex is still my go to program for B&W.

I'm not sure what Tim is on about but using these programs in my workflow does not add any files that I have not already created. After working up the raw image in LR I export to PS where any Nik adjustments are done on layers. When I'm finished I save the file and it shows up in LR alongside of the original. Of course, I do not process every image I shoot, I will perhaps work up one or two files from a folder so the additional files are minimal. The only way that Tim's concern would make any sense, as best as I can tell, would be if a person converted every file in LR? which would be silly.

Does anyone know if the recently offered Nik suite is an updated version over the one offered a few years back? My understanding is that since Google took over Nik there have been no updates to the programs. If I'm wrong about this I'll download the recent offer.

AlanKlein · March 31, 2016

I agree with Tim. It's not worth learning another program on top of Lightroom with the extra image files, etc.. I tried Silver Efex and own Topaz BW. While both are interesting, LR provides all (for me) the editing sliders to do what I need. Why complicate things with a second program that essentially does the same thing? Since I don't use the presets and edit each picture to its taste, LR does the job. Of course being free, you could try Silver Efex and make your own conclusions.

Wouter Willemse · March 31, 2016

Gordon, there have been minor updates, so it could be worth it to check which exact version you have installed today, and update to the latest build. But generically, yeah, no massive changes in the last few years.

digitaldog · March 31, 2016

I don't think it's worth the added complexity in my workflow having two versions of my Raw images.

</blockquote>

But that's not what's happening! There's only one raw. And there's possibly one rendered version with edits applied that for whatever reason, someone can't produce using just LR.

The only way to end up with only one raw file is do 100% of your work in the raw converter and NEVER render the image outside it. That's possible in LR of course. You'd print from it, and never render the raw for other editing outside the raw converter.

IF you ever take a raw into Photoshop or similar to edit further, Nik or otherwise, you've now got two files (one raw, one rendered).

gordonjb · March 31, 2016

Wouter, Thanks I'll do that.

gordonjb · March 31, 2016

People complicate their workflow to whatever degree is needed to get the job done. If I need the benefit of layers, as I often do, then I export to PS. Alan gets what he needs in LR. No doubt there are people who think Alan's workflow is too complicated because they shoot jpeg and that is all they need.

cyanatic · March 31, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=299288">Barry Fisher</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 31, 2016; 04:50 a.m.

Is that your standard, new and unique? I suppose it depends on how you use it. Working in LR, its not any big complexity in workflow. You rt click, edit in silver exfex, do your conversion and save, it ends up right next to the original image in the film strip. Depending on how often you convert to b/w it does take up more space. But the complexity of workflow is basically in your mind. I try to take interesting pictures, I don't need to create unique and never before seen b/w conversions...I prefer good tonality appropriate to the photo.

</blockquote>

Exactly. At least for me (and from the sound of it, Barry as well), using Silver Efex Pro isn't about mass producing the same (or a "special or unique") look. I have many custom presets in both Silver Efex and LR, and none of them can be used universally. Some of them can be used as starting points to achieve a desired look, feel, or tonality, but it still requires further work and refinement to best serve a given photograph. Quality post processing requires work, thought, experience, and instinct. It is never about pushing one button, slider, or preset and being done. I think Barry hit the nail on the head with these words: "appropriate to the photo".

The work flow is very simple for me, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to use it or believe in it.

When it comes time to make prints, specifically for B&W, I have found that Silver Efex Pro gives me a much more satisfactory result than LR alone. I have my high end prints done at Digital Silver Imaging and they highly recommend using Silver Efex before getting the prints made. I do so not because they said so, but because after some trial and error I believe they are entirely correct in making that suggestion in terms of the quality of the final print.

I also sometimes use Analog Efex Pro and Color Efex Pro depending on the final result I am trying to achieve.

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

Is that your standard, new and unique? I suppose it depends on how you use it. Working in LR, its not any big complexity in workflow.

</blockquote>

What's your standard, Barry? Old and uninteresting? I don't understand your question. Call me an optimist with lofty goals in what I consider creative challenges.

Yes, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to see results that don't make an image look like the next guy did it using the same image enhancement software.

I never said LR or ACR offers a complex workflow. Having to manage two versions of my Raw images is. And I see no one's yet posted any examples to show that the results make it worth the hassle working this way.

I mean I'm currently re-editing shots in CS5 I did in CS3 back in 2012 and I'm still not done and I PAID money to get the improvements I see in CS5. So now most here are suggesting I should really consider an outside pixel editor to work on those images even further?!

ARE YOU KIDDING?! I HAVE A LIFE!

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

I'm not sure what Tim is on about but using these programs in my workflow does not add any files that I have not already created. After working up the raw image in LR I export to PS where any Nik adjustments are done on layers. When I'm finished I save the file and it shows up in LR alongside of the original.

</blockquote>

You just contradicted yourself, Gordon. What are you on?

You have a Raw file and now you have a tiff. That's two versions of the same image. You first started out spending time editing one Raw file and now you have an additional tiff version you spent more time editing.

When you update your Raw converter in the ensuing years getting the added benefits of its editing tools maybe 5 or so years down the road you'll have to remember and wonder if it will be compatible with what was done in Raw to get you to the finished point that required you to do further edits with the layered tiff because it now may not be so great looking as you thought.

marco_ristuccia · March 31, 2016

Tim,

it's the opposite. By working with Silver Efex 2 I spare a lot of time. There are a lot of really well done presets, I simply choose the one that is nearest to what I want to achieve and then refine the settings to the final result.

It's way faster than having something in mind and starting from zero (like in Photoshop) trying to achieve what's in mind.

Not counting settings like the "Soft Contrast" and the "Dynamic Brightness", the film emulations and the realistic grain simulation that are really difficult to reproduce in LR/Photoshop.

In my personal workflow Silver Efex Pro 2 is faster and the prints look better. That's having a life! .)

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

Tim, it's the opposite. By working with Silver Efex 2 I spare a lot of time. There are a lot of really well done presets, I simply choose the one that is nearest to what I want to achieve and then refine the settings to the final result.

</blockquote>

Show me.

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

The only way to end up with only one raw file is do 100% of your work in the raw converter and NEVER render the image outside it. That's possible in LR of course. You'd print from it, and never render the raw for other editing outside the raw converter. IF you ever take a raw into Photoshop or similar to edit further, Nik or otherwise, you've now got two files (one raw, one rendered).

</blockquote>

You're missing the point about the finished results of the Raw image verses what was done to it in pixel form. Those are two completely different images.

I'm not talking about output versions of the Raw image for example downsized web uploads which are an exact unedited copy of the Raw image in pixel form. We're discussing creating two versions of the same image that look different from each other because someone's creative vision just can't manage to get it all done in the Raw converter.

Here's a tip...Learn to do it in the Raw converter. It's possible but no one wants to spend time finding out.

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

I think Barry hit the nail on the head with these words: "appropriate to the photo".

</blockquote>

Appropriate is a form of conformity to a vision that points back to the source of what is considered appropriate which suggest at least for me copying a look that has come before it, placed in the mind to become the familiar. Once that thought or version of conformity is planted in the creative's mind it can't be removed and thus what the creative person thinks is original and unique is really based on a standard way of looking/interpreting what is appropriate.

Using the same process that everyone else uses is a guarantee it will look just like the other guy's sense of appropriate since they took the same path to get to that point. How about plow your own path?

digitaldog · March 31, 2016

You're missing the point about the finished results of the Raw image verses what was done to it in pixel form. Those are two completely different images.

</blockquote>

And two completely different files! Something you've objected to (and incorrectly stated were both raw). The raw file itself isn't an image per se, certainly something anyone would want to look at. You've got to render it! So you have two options. End up with two files (raw and rendered, the later being edited outside the converter) OR one raw file that is only edited within a converter. So, like in LR, you could stick with one file; the raw. You could produce a slideshow or a print but everything has to be done in LR. You want to edit outside LR? You've going to have two files. Doesn't matter if you want to edit it in PS to add a layer or Nik to add an effect. Two files.

We're discussing creating two versions of the same image that look different from each other because someone's creative vision just can't manage to get it all done in the Raw converter.

</blockquote>

You could have a 1000 variations with ONE file (the raw) in LR using virtual copies! But you're 'stuck' doing 100% of the processing in the LR engine (or ACR).

This is real simple Tim. You have a raw. IF you only want one file, you have to do 100% of the processing in a raw converter. Duh. IF you want to use any other product, you need to render the raw to a new file and process that data. Two files. Big deal.

Learn to do it in the Raw converter.

</blockquote>

There are editing functionality that isn't available there, now what? Layers, blend mode, editing in CMYK, retouching using pixel precision, content aware technology etc; can't be done in LR/ACR. You can't learn to do it in the raw converter if the raw converter can't produce that functionality. OTHERWISE I agree 100%; do as much as you can in the raw converter. For some images, that's 100% of all the editing needed. For many images it isn't.

A raw, parametric editor like LR and a pixel editor like Photoshop are absolutely NOT on parity in terms of their functionality. Not even close!

Supriyo · March 31, 2016

By working with Silver Efex 2 I spare a lot of time. There are a lot of really well done presets, I simply choose the one that is nearest to what I want to achieve and then refine the settings to the final result.

</blockquote>

As an avid user of silver efex, I agree with Marco 100%. In most cases, silver efex saves time at the cost of hard drive space. If you have 20 starting points as opposed to 5, it is quicker for you to achieve the desired look. Right now, I mostly use LR for BW conversions, only because I don't want extra tiff files for every image. Only if I am not satisfied with LR conversion (I am quite new to LR), I would try silver efex which has extra features to play with.

Show me.

</blockquote>

Tim, I am just a beginner in LR, you probably have more experience than me. I am giving an example where I could not get a satisfactory conversion in LR, and silver efex gave a more desirable result. Here I used the 'soft contrast' feature of silver efex to make the shadow areas lighter without loosing internal contrast, at the same time reinforce features in the brighter areas. With LR, I could not achieve the same result using the shadows/highlights sliders. I am not saying it is impossible, may be someone with better knowledge can make it work in LR. Anyway, you wanted an example, so here is mine.<div></div>

Supriyo · March 31, 2016

Here is the silver efex version.<div>

00drSW-562075284.jpeg.00c79c9864fdfba733d84e6d651fe25a.jpeg

</div>

gordonjb · March 31, 2016

Tim, I am already creating another file if I want to edit beyond what I can do in LR so using Nik only adds a layer to that file. I'm not sure what your are not grasping?

I can and regularly do revisit previously edited file to tweak them. I find that saving the file as a smart object with layers offers me plenty of wiggle room. If that is not enough or if I want a radical departure, I can simply return to the raw file and begin anew.

As for your implication that if we were all as skilled as you are, we would not need Photoshop and could do everything we would ever need to do in Lightroom, I want some of whatever you are high on.

marco_ristuccia · March 31, 2016

I suspect we are degenerating to one of the classic stupid war of principles.

Maybe it would be better to stop discussing (we are too clever to repeat the same error again, right?) and synthetise our

thought to the OP.

I think that the general consensus here is: if your workflow does't have the strict constraint of dealing only with the RAW

file, then the Nik Efex Pro suite is still worth a try, to unconventionally create the conventional (or the exact opposite). :)

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

And two completely different files! Something you've objected to (and incorrectly stated were both raw).

</blockquote>

I did not incorrectly state they were both Raw. One was Raw and one was a tiff. Maybe I should've said both are completely different looking versions of the same image. I don't know where you read I stated they were both Raw.

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

You could have a 1000 variations with ONE file (the raw) in LR using virtual copies! But you're 'stuck' doing 100% of the processing in the LR engine (or ACR).

</blockquote>

I and I'm sure quite a few others don't have the time to come up with a 1000 variations. No one can be that obsessive over an image hardly anyone on the planet is going to give 2¢ worth of attention. If it takes that many variations the Nik Collection isn't going to fix that level of indecisiveness. There's seriously something wrong with the photographers vision and/or editing skills.

digitaldog · March 31, 2016

I did not incorrectly state they were both Raw.

</blockquote>

IF you didn't (see below), you need to work on your writing skills:

I don't think it's worth the added complexity in my workflow having two versions of my Raw images.

I'm not eager or tolerant having to manage duplicates of all my thousands of Raw images since I'll have to work on a 16bit tiff using NIK software.

</blockquote>

The bottom line is clear to most if not all of us; I'm not sure why I have to repeat to you again: The raw file itself isn't an image per se, certainly something anyone would want to look at. You've got to render it! So you have two options. End up with two files (raw and rendered, the later being edited outside the converter) OR one raw file that is only edited within a converter and viewed there.

I and I'm sure quite a few others don't have the time to come up with a 1000 variations.

</blockquote>

Fine. I'll alter the comment which expresses the same fact: You could have 10 variations with ONE file (the raw) in LR using virtual copies! But you're 'stuck' doing 100% of the processing in the LR engine (or ACR). And viewing it there too! You want only 1 file? Do 100% of all the work in the raw converter, view the image only in that application.

digitaldog · March 31, 2016

Oh and Tim, since you might want two files (one raw, one rendered), to avoid the limitation of working 100% in the raw converter, you could of course make that 2nd document a layered image, or one with Smart Objects that can provide multiple renderings/versions of the image.

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

Here is the silver efex version.

</blockquote>

That's an over cranked HDR effect, Supriyo, and the very thing I avoid even in ACR/LR especially in CS5. LR4's PV2012 helps avoid it.

Overcast cloudy light doesn't behave that way unless you were going for some type of stylized gritty, contrasty look. I mean you have those thick dark overcast clouds but in that one spot in the foreground it's producing a ton of diffused spot light to make the concrete sidewalk and rock sculpture to almost glow just as bright as the water but not enough light to bounce underneath the benches that are completely black.

I've seen Silver Efex tuts where there are settings to avoid that look as well. Most of the tuts show minor tweaks to tonality that could've been done in ACR/LR. It leaves me scratching my head as to why they just couldn't do it in the Raw converter.

I find it puzzling that folks pay for Raw converter software and don't bother to figure out how to make it work for them to where they have to resort to doing it in third party pixel editors.

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

IF you didn't (see below), you need to work on your writing skills:

I don't think it's worth the added complexity in my workflow having two versions of my Raw images.

</blockquote>

Oh, so you couldn't make the leap that I implied that the duplicate was a tiff seeing that's what the argument is about. You need to brush up on your skill at discerning contextual references in a discussion.

I guess if they didn't put the plate of food right in front of you, you'ld starve. Right, Andrew?

Tim_Lookingbill · March 31, 2016

I am just a beginner in LR, you probably have more experience than me.

</blockquote>

I just checked your PN gallery and I'm not seeing a beginner at being able to take command of an image editor. You seem to be quite aware of the behavior of light on objects as well like these...

http://www.photo.net/photo/18033123&size=md http://www.photo.net/photo/18158236

And the gradual shadow roll off of the foreground shrubs in this one...

http://www.photo.net/photo/17919202

So I'm not sure why you needed to render the posted sample the way you did.

Sign In

Nik software. Does it still make sense in 2016?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in