Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nick plugins  (Read 2172 times)
aebolzan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« on: May 22, 2011, 02:02:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I have tested some of the NikSoftware plugins (Viveza, Silver Effex, Color Efex) and obtained some nice results with them. However, as one can test them just for only two weeks, I had not enough time to see if they really do things that I cannot get with Lightroom 3.4 alone.  What seems to me is that with those plugins one can "develop" images faster than with Lightroom, as with few clicks contrast, color saturation, texture, etc. are easily modify with the use of control points. But, the result is that I am duplicating the number of images, as Nik creates a .tif  for its work. This seems to be against the philosophy of Lightroom, which I like, where one has a single raw file, and all the resulting images that one eventually creates, are just virtuals and "contained" in the catalog file. I wonder if one can obtain almost the same results as with Nik programs but working, probably much more than with Nik plugins,  only within the develop module of Lightroom.  I have not tested Dfine and Sharpener Pro, so I wonder if the last improvements in Lightroom with Noise and sharpening make those plugins rather superfluous.  Comparing the prices between, for instance, Viveza and the Complete set for Lightroom, it seems more reasonable to buy the set and not just one of them...but....has anyone got the set and used it long enough to say that Nik plugins are really worth to buy?  Or they are just an easier way to improve the images without using brushes, graduated filters, etc. with LR? 

Thanks for the comments!

Agustin
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2445



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2011, 02:27:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with your overall views about creating tifs and recent improvements in LR3 making 3rd party NR and sharpening tools (almost) superfluous.

The Nik plug-ins are all good programs and pleasing to use, but in my view overpriced (unless you do buy the set). I chose not to buy.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 03:22:34 PM by johnbeardy » Logged

jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2011, 03:57:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I purchased the entire set of Nik plug-ins.  While they are expensive, they do provide excellent results.  The control point methodology works very well for me with natural looking results.  I find they work best within Nikon Capture NX2 (also designed by Nik) where you can apply the Nik filters directly within the program.  I also use them in Photoshop CS5, where they just create an additional layer (that you can choose to merge if you want to reduce file size).  I don't use them in Lightroom--I tried that and found it to be too cumbersome.
Logged

John DeMott
frugal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2011, 08:38:50 PM »
ReplyReply

What I've been doing in order to get as non-destructive a workflow as possible is to not use the plug-in from Lightroom but instead I use the option to edit in Photoshop CS5 as a smart object. I then can apply any Nik filters as smart filters.

Yes, this does mean I get a 2nd copy of the image back in LR but I can take care of that with stacks. The advantage is that I can always get back to the original raw file or my edited copy. One trick I've discovered though is that when editing the PSD version select "edit original" so that you can get the original layered copy and not a flattened additional copy.

Plus, this way when working on the edited copy I can even get back to my raw development by opening the smart object (although in ACR instead of Lightroom).
Logged
ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2011, 07:16:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that in the next version of LR, it is extremely important to have a fully supported parametric 3rd party plugins possibility:
* in all cases, the parametric workflow should always be there (this is the main concept of LR)
* no need for extra physical copies taking up resources (also broken workflow)
* plugin makers are always a step ahead feature-wise - no need for waiting for the next version of LR for the technology/idea to be implemented

LR should be like today's DAWs (digital audio workstations) - powerful containers with endless possibilities for customization through preferred 3rd party components.
As every's photographer's style and preferences vary a lot, LR should concentrate only on fundamental features & improving them. Otherwise, in order to satisfy all the needs, it might get feature overloaded.

Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2011, 11:59:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that in the next version of LR, it is extremely important to have a fully supported parametric 3rd party plugins possibility:

A better plugin API would make LR a more attractive platform for developers, but it doesn't seem to tie in with Adobe's strategy. They've been very aggressive in incorporating what were previously plug-ins in their programs. This includes HDR and stitching in PS, and noise reduction, sharpening and lens correction in LR. I think the main reason why Adobe is doing this is to add and update features to encourage customers to upgrade to the latest version of their software to capture the revenue: if a customer buys or upgrades an HDR plugin the money goes to the manufacturer of the plugin, not Adobe.

Also, I wonder if the attach rate of commercial plugins is significant enough to warrant the expense in improving the API - ie. if the attach rate is 5%, an improved API might improve LR sales by only 5% x [multiplier for the impact of the improved API], which is likely much smaller than 5% unless it's a killer plugin which drive attach rates.

I don't know if the SDK and use of API costs anything in fees or royalties, so depending on that it will change the equation.

I'm sure NIK, OnOne, Picture Code, etc. are painfully aware of Adobe's strategy, and are wary of spending too much R&D on yet another Adobe program which will likely integrate their product in the future. Then again, many of those companies rely entirely on the existence of PS/LR, and have no choice other than reap the benefits of first-mover advantage.

In the end, quite a complicated question, and I'm ignoring the technical challenges (read: cost) in developing a more integrated API/SDK which I know nothing about. It is likely in the interest of Adobe to keep the SDK/API crippled to en extent to allow them to roll out their own fully integrated implementation of a feature to keep users upgrading to the newest version.
Logged

ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2011, 01:00:47 PM »
ReplyReply

This one leads who has quick access to the latest, in more convenient way (in the context of imaging competition). Not only developers, but also LR customers would benefit greatly, making the software to sell well (win-win for Adobe, customers, plugin developers). The sign of incorporation tells a lot - the tool to be integrated was existing much before. Now imagine if there wasn't way of using it.

A better plugin API would make LR a more attractive platform for developers, but it doesn't seem to tie in with Adobe's strategy. They've been very aggressive in incorporating what were previously plug-ins in their programs. This includes HDR and stitching in PS, and noise reduction, sharpening and lens correction in LR. I think the main reason why Adobe is doing this is to add and update features to encourage customers to upgrade to the latest version of their software to capture the revenue: if a customer buys or upgrades an HDR plugin the money goes to the manufacturer of the plugin, not Adobe.

Also, I wonder if the attach rate of commercial plugins is significant enough to warrant the expense in improving the API - ie. if the attach rate is 5%, an improved API might improve LR sales by only 5% x [multiplier for the impact of the improved API], which is likely much smaller than 5% unless it's a killer plugin which drive attach rates.

I don't know if the SDK and use of API costs anything in fees or royalties, so depending on that it will change the equation.

I'm sure NIK, OnOne, Picture Code, etc. are painfully aware of Adobe's strategy, and are wary of spending too much R&D on yet another Adobe program which will likely integrate their product in the future. Then again, many of those companies rely entirely on the existence of PS/LR, and have no choice other than reap the benefits of first-mover advantage.

In the end, quite a complicated question, and I'm ignoring the technical challenges (read: cost) in developing a more integrated API/SDK which I know nothing about. It is likely in the interest of Adobe to keep the SDK/API crippled to en extent to allow them to roll out their own fully integrated implementation of a feature to keep users upgrading to the newest version.
Logged
frugal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2011, 06:51:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that in the next version of LR, it is extremely important to have a fully supported parametric 3rd party plugins possibility:

I doubt Adobe can open up the whole processing pipeline to 100% integrate 3rd party applications into the workflow. There's simply too many issues with doing that such as what happens if the plugin is uninstalled or upgraded? What happens when Adobe pushes out a new processing engine (like they did in LR 3)? And so on.

However, what I could see working nicely would be if you could do something similar to the smart filter workflow that I outlined, but without having to roundtrip to Photoshop. Essentially, process the file as normal in LR but then as a final step, allow for any 3rd party filters to be run, with the settings that were set in each filter. You'd probably need to allow for stacking of the filters, and rearranging the order but I could see that bringing a ton of value to the LR workflow.

However, I think processing power could be a concern here. I have a 2 year old 27" iMac with 8gb of ram and smart filters can significantly reduce its performance when I make changes. It's certainly not a real-time experience. That makes me think there'd have to be some tuning involved in order to get the responsiveness to where it would need to be.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad