Nik Software

[kenben]

I have been doing quite a bit of reading on using Nik Software.What I would like to know is do you process your image in Camera Raw and process in Photoshop first and then use Nik Software to fine tune.Or is the photo done strictly in Nik Software.

[Philip Weber]

Nik software makes plug-ins that augment post processing.

In my own case, for instance, I use LR 3.3 as my RAW converter, where I also make basic and sometimes creative adjustments. In Adobe Photoshop (CS5 for me) I use its features, when necessary, to further develop my vision for the image and very often, but certainly not always, I use the plug-ins from Nik (and others, especially Topaz Labs) to further enhance the image. Nik's software will automatically add the adjustment into a Photoshop layer, which is helpful.

I currently use their Color Efex Pro 3.0, Silver Efex Pro, Viveza 2.0 and am just now learning their newest package, HDR Efex Pro. While I don't have enough experience with the the latter to say for sure, from what Tony Sweet and Jason Odell are saying in their new and excellent eBook on the software, one can do so much within the plug-in on a bracketed set, that little if anything (except sharpening) needs to be done afterward.

For me, the main pros of Nik's software is their U-point technology and the intuitive ease of their user interface.

I hope the above helps!
Phil

[JOHNSHEEHAN]

OK, sort of on topic.  Just installed HDR EFEX Pro with PS Elements 9 and Lightroom 2.7.  First issue - opening a .jpg file in PSE does not allow use of the Nik plugin.  Nik site says the file needs to be converted to 32 bit; however, using the Mode - Convert commands in PSE does not show a 32 bit option.  Haven't tried it in Lightroom yet - am I SOL with Elements?  If so, I'm not a happy camper.  Thanks!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Since I loaded the Nik software from a disc there's been an upgrade.  Downloaded that.  Then did some searching and found the key - the image cannot be the background layer or Nik will not work.  Made a duplicate layer and sure enough there was the Nik link under Filters.  Will have to try it in Lightroom now.

[sniper]

If I remember rightly you have to open the jpeg image from the scrtipts or automate menu rather than the filter menu (I could be wrong) I gave up trying to use the Nik hdr as it crashed photoshop every single time I tried it on 3 different computers (decent spec)
I do use silver effects which works faultlessly though.

[jdemott]

Going back to the original question...if you are using Camera Raw, then you need to convert from Raw and open the file in Photoshop before you can use the Nik filters.  In Photoshop, you can use any combination of Photoshop edits and Nik adjustments that work for you.  If you are using Lightroom, it is possible to use Nik filters without opening the file in Photoshop, but I found the process to be rather cumbersome.  If you are shooting Nikon, then you can use Nikon Capture NX2 (made by Nik) as your raw conversion and editing software, with Nik Color Efex as a plug-in which works quite seamlessly (it works within NX2 rather than opening a separate window as in Photoshop).  Capture NX2 natively uses the same control point technology found in Nik Viveza.

Whichever workflow you use, the Nik filters do not provide a complete substitute for all the tools found in your editing software.  For most images, it is likely you would make some edits using Photoshop or NX2 or whatever and make some enhancements with Nik.

[AlanPezzulich]

I have NIK and CS5. I do the HDR merge in CS5. I have found Photoshop to be superior to the NIK merge software (Photoshop deghosting is fantastic). I use Photoshop to produce a 32 bit file and then use the NIK plug in to tone map the image. I prefer a realistic effect for my HRD shots. I have found that with most of my images the presets do a good job. Some times I add a control point or two to finish the image. In an exceptional case I may have to further adjust the tone mapped image in Photoshop.

Alan

[ifocus]

It might be a little off topic ...

Short Story - I was using Capture NX2 with Color EFEX 2 complete (I paid full price). I am now using Lightroom and I asked NIK to switch my licence. There is NIK's answer:

"Thank you for contacting Nik Software. Unfortunately, we do not have a way of switching licenses. You would have to purchase a version of Color Efex Pro 3 Complete ($299.95) or else purchase the Compete Collection for Lightroom and Aperture (currently on sale for $254.95)."
I was not asking anything free, may be upgrade price or something like that.
Just beware ... In my book, NIK Software products are officially overpriced!

Despite I like the quality of output, I believe one could achieve the same results in LR3 or CS5 without NIK's plugins.

Any thoughts?

[howardm]

they have a really user unfriendly business model.  Their stuff is overpriced and if you decide to get the 'collection', you can't upgrade the collection, you have to upgrade piece-meal

[digitaldog]

If you are using Lightroom, it is possible to use Nik filters without opening the file in Photoshop, but I found the process to be rather cumbersome. 

And an important concept to keep in mind, it (Nik and all 3rd party LR plug-ins like it) still apply their processing on a rendered image, not the raw data.

[stamper]

And an important concept to keep in mind, it (Nik and all 3rd party LR plug-ins like it) still apply their processing on a rendered image, not the raw data.

If it looks good in print does it really matter?

[digitaldog]

If it looks good in print does it really matter?

Yes it can matter. Its not a parametric edit, non destructive. It can impact ones workflow (burning edits onto pixels).

[stamper]

Yes it can matter. Its not a parametric edit, non destructive. It can impact ones workflow (burning edits onto pixels).

Does this mean you aren't in favour of third party plug ins?

[Patricia Sheley]

I was initially a big fan of Nik's SilverFX . I say initially because it took forever for me to step away from film and make the jump to digital. Having attended a presentation by Schewe, Caponigro and Rodney, I decided that if I were going to try to go digital, I'd better bite the bullet and go the RAW route, and therefore needed to climb a huge processing slope.

I have always been extremely comfortable in the darkroom and even was allowed to participate in a Navy Photojournalism program in the sixties which introduced to color. (Kodak picked up the bill for this I think)

Trying to use the Canon software and then ACR through Bridge felt like someone had gouged out my eyes , mind, and sawed off the hands that had felt happy working under red light. So it's been about 4 years now... Something happened late in the summer 2010, and through this winter that these necessary tools no longer felt like being buried alive...no , I don't know the bells and whistles, am not a whiz kid in PS, but I started feeling comfortable working a raw file as if it were the darkroom...somewhere along the line I was more happy not "trying to approximate my ideas with SilverFX" (I have the rest of their collection too, but stopped using them sometime last year) Not sure why, but it is what allowed me to started using my processing time with some of the satisfaction and ease that I always had in the darkroom.

As Andrew mentioned, I started getting this gnawing everytime I had to stop...create a go back to file...and then proceed to work in a baked way in SilverFX..
I think a smart object could probably mitigate some of that , but (and this is just what has worked for me to free my personal vision) I've decided for what time remains I'd like to build on this newly restored sense of being back in the darkroom...my .02 is not worth a whole lot, but just a common woman's sense of things...

[stamper]

About ten years ago everybody was happy "burning pixels" and producing good prints. Then along came the Raw work flow which was progress and proved to be technically a large step forward. I fully accept and use the Raw work flow but if pixels are indeed being burnt by Silver FX and Viveza2 ( very good IMO ) then so be it. If these plug ins help to make a good print where the use of them doesn't posterize or degrade images in a way that doesn't show up in a print then I will continue to use them. I have no doubt in a few years we will be able to use them in the Raw work flow but for the present ....

[digitaldog]

About ten years ago everybody was happy "burning pixels" and producing good prints.

They all were? And happy too? You got this data how? The smart ones used adjustment layers to avoid burning pixels and having the ability to avoid painting themselves into corners in terms of editing and workflows. But apparently you feel you can speak for everybody and their happiness?

[kirkt]

If you utilize Nik plug-ins within Photoshop (i.e., you process your raw file into a rendered state, export it to, say 16 bit TIFF for post in Photoshop - as opposed to roundtripping in Lightroom, where you just step in and back out of Photoshop and never save a .psd file) you can use a Smart Object workflow to preserve your Nik edits until you get the desired final.  That is, you can use DFine, Sharpener, ColorEfex, Viveza and HDREfex as Smart Object layers and revisit each one to change and tweak, giving you pseudo-non-destructive edits, similar to adjustment layers.  Save the stack as a psd and you can come back to it anytime, eventually flattening, resizing and doing final output sharpening, etc. each time you repurpose the image.

I use the Nik suite, although I find HDREfex to be pretty weak compared to purpose-built, full 32-bit HDR apps.

Kirk

I suppose I have officially relinquished my lurker card!  Yea for me.

[Chris_Brown]

The smart ones used adjustment layers . . .

I wouldn't say 'smart'. Stoked, maybe, but not smart.

When PS v3 was released and used layers instead of unlimited undo, it was the most freeing experience using software I'd ever had. When v4 provided adjustment layers, it was another epiphany for me. Since then, no version of Photoshop has given me such freedom in my workflow. Smart objects come close, but I want more freedom/flexibility/pre-visualization capabilities when making changes to their parameters.

[stamper]

They all were? And happy too? You got this data how? The smart ones used adjustment layers to avoid burning pixels and having the ability to avoid painting themselves into corners in terms of editing and workflows. But apparently you feel you can speak for everybody and their happiness?

Burning pixels. I quoted you and you made no mention of adjustment layers at the time? As I pointed out there wasn't an alternative so everyone got on with the process and produced good prints. BTW in case you haven't used these third party plug ins they can be used on layers so the burning of pixels - the term you used - isn't really applicable? 

[digitaldog]

Layers were introduced in Photoshop 3, far, far longer than 10 years ago (1994) and allow users to avoid burning edits into the base pixels. And since the introduction of Photoshop 3, users have had the ability to keep from burning these edits which is a very smart way to work.

But the point which you seem to need to jump on is the fact that when using LR plug-ins, the data is applied not within the raw workflow but after, on rendered pixels just as if you ran the plug-in within Photoshop (on a layer hopefully). Some are under the impression that there is a difference in terms of doing this work in LR vs. Photoshop, believing this is happening in a raw workflow, in the raw processing pipeline. I simply pointed out this isn’t the case. About the only reason to use such plug-in’s in LR is if one doesn’t own Photoshop (which I doubt is the case with most readers here, its an advanced lot). That burning pixels produces acceptable prints is moot, the comment was about workflow and flexibility in image editing.

[stamper]

Layers were introduced in Photoshop 3, far, far longer than 10 years ago (1994) and allow users to avoid burning edits into the base pixels. And since the introduction of Photoshop 3, users have had the ability to keep from burning these edits which is a very smart way to work.

But the point which you seem to need to jump on is the fact that when using LR plug-ins, the data is applied not within the raw workflow but after, on rendered pixels just as if you ran the plug-in within Photoshop (on a layer hopefully). Some are under the impression that there is a difference in terms of doing this work in LR vs. Photoshop, believing this is happening in a raw workflow, in the raw processing pipeline. I simply pointed out this isn’t the case. About the only reason to use such plug-in’s in LR is if one doesn’t own Photoshop (which I doubt is the case with most readers here, its an advanced lot). That burning pixels produces acceptable prints is moot, the comment was about workflow and flexibility in image editing.

Andrew, you seem to have the ability to dance on a pinhead. I will ask once again. Despite the "problems" with regards to using the plug ins, are you in favour of using them, or not?