I guess a person’s feelings on this would depend on how they use these three classes of tools. I’m constantly iterating. This means opening an image in Ps via Lr, and then opening the relevant Nik modules (sometimes more than one of them) to make my edits, which are saved non-destructively using smart objects. If I want to iterate/experiment, it is a complete PITA. I can’t just make a quick change and see the results. I have to open Ps, then the smart object, then one or more Nik modules, and then close them all to see the end result in Ps. If I want to tweak my change, I have to go through everything all over again. It would be a dream to be able to do this all in a single program that immediately showed me my final result. Of course, if an image required an actual pixel editor, then I would still need to export from PL but this is situation occurs less often every year.
The dream come true is to just simply use DxO PhotoLab. Apart from pixel editing, PL, combined with FilmPack and ViewPoint does everything I have ever needed for years now.
Non-destructive editing of RAW, TIFF and JPEG files from import to printing.
I downloaded Nik Collection to test out and, so far haven’t found anything worthwhile using it for the I couldn’t do with PhotoLab
To me that’s the only logical way to use Nik, since Nik was originally coded to compliment pixel editors.
I’m wondering what the advantage is to sending a file to Affinity and then opening NIK as a plugin vs sending it directly from PL? In either case a Tiff has to be created. I have seen similar workflows mentioned for PL to Topaz products.
Yes, that does seem, an unnecessarily convoluted workflow.
I have just finished preparing the prints for our club photo’s summer exhibition, with some images being printed at A2 borderless, for mounting on 5mm foam board.
The image are in various states of “readiness” and this year, one of them was far too small to print without resizing.
My standard workflow is to process in PL.
If the image is bigger than the anticipated print size, export it to TIFF at the final (reduced) size.
If the image is too small, I export it to TIFF at original size and then open that TIFF in Topaz Gigapixel AI to arrive at the final size.
Either way, I simply open the resulting TIFF in Preview and print from there, applying an ICC profile if necessary for the colour images on satin paper and using Canon’s own excellent B&W mode for B&W prints on baryta paper.
I see absolutely no need to go via Affinity Photo unless I’m adding any artwork such s a border. Certainly no need to use any of the Nik tools and don’t see the need for plugins as I am working with a TIFF file, which can be simply opened in any other app.
Thanks for your response, Joanna. It will be interesting if some of the people that use that workflow will post here. My hunch is that it has something to do with Layers and perhaps multiple external software.
Layers are the reason I use Nik via Ps (sometimes), especially with smart objects.
My workflow is:
RAW → PL → Tiff (saved on my Tiffs folders, separated from RAWs)
TIFF → ACDSee Browser/Organizer (by the way the best, powerful and easiest organizer)
Than from ACDSee I open as external editor any NIK as Stand Alone or any other sw editor as Affinity or even ACDSee tools for quick edit, and ( don’t laugh ) the old Nikon NX-2 to clean any missed spot on TIFF if needed (the best)
ADCSee browser → TIFF export to JPG , re-size, rename, print, move, generate PDFs, whatever
ACDSee browser can open any kind of file, so I can organize projects including TIFFs, PDFs, DOCs, meaning photos, contracts, show entries, etc.
I know sounds weird but for me is working smooth and quick for many years. Note that I use NIK in Stand Alone mode with just one click from ACDSee, is quicker, the screen is bigger and I can “Save As” if needed. The only slow thing in the whole workflow is when applied DeepPrime but for the results no problems at all.
I don’t and never used PS or LR. I tried a few times but is like walking in the dark, the files are in mysterious places
For me don’t make sense integrate NIK with PL.
I understand all your points and I’m am not dismissing your arguments out of hand, but as a retired long time software developer I focus on the cost/benefit factor. While your suggestion of multiple tabs might be functional, the effort to accomplish it would likely be far greater in the short run than any benefit it would yield for DxO as a for profit company. It is difficult to say whether the long term benefits would be worth the effort, but reallocating sufficient resources to do this integration would leave little or no resources available for other enhancements or support issues for quite some time.
Because I use Affinity as my pixel editor. Often I do the final tweaks there just in Affinity and then export for my desired output. I also call whichever plugin I need, as I don’t just use NIK.
So rather than have different workflows I have just the 1. PL - Affinity and or NIK/Other plugin
Correct. While some may find that PL can do everything they want, for me personally it doesn’t. I move it to Affinity when I have done what I need and then work on what I want, particularly textures etc. I also have NIK, Topaz and ON1 plugins I use too.
So contrary to some, it isn’t convoluted at all. I have 1 workflow that readily adapts to my needs rather than multiple workflows for each type of image I do.
You are right – the workflow depends on the pic / what I’m going to do with
PL to develop the raw-file as far as possible
– incl. export to Nik 3.3, if something can be achieved better / simpler
(always SilverEfexPro for B&W)
PS (AP …) for advanced edits & corrections
– incl. Nik on layers
(always SilverEfexPro for B&W, multiple layers …)
PS for FineArt printing
– always separate print version at final size
– w/ soft proof & corrections corresponding to the paper !
– Nik OutputSharpener (Auto …)
– custom frame & borders, text & copyright
photobooks (to order)
– w/ missing soft proof in PL → have to include LR in the workflow
Thanks to all of you who replied to my query about opening NIK in Affinity rather than sending it directly from PL. In most cases this was done because there is further work to be done in a Pixel Editor. It’s convenient to open NIK programs as a Plugin and if I understand correctly have the NIK effects as a layer. So they use their Pixel editor as a hub.
Another person opened it in their DAM, ACDSee. They use ACDSee as a hub and direct their photos from it to any editor they want to use. I do a similar workflow in Photo Supreme and don’t use a Pixel Editor. However on the rare occasions I use NIK I open it directly from PL5.
Black and white in Silver Efex are in another league from FilmPack (tested on my own photos, and I’m much more comfortable in PhotoLab than SFx).
The situation is probably similar with Color Efex emulsions. I’m not a big emulsions/artificial distressed film look guy so I haven’t done substantial head to head testing but when I did play with Color Efex the film look results were impressive.
I don’t know how many people are trying to run the ship at DxO but they’re running it into the ground. These “upgrades” to new versions are not upgrades at all. Each one seems to be partial upgrades to the “Collection” and a way for them to simply slap a new version number on it and expect customers to pay more money.
I’ve been a long-time supporter of the company (since 2009), but in the last four years I’ve shelled out over $700 for their software (the majority in upgrades, PureRaw being the only new offering) . . . compared to $480 for Adobe’s photographer plan, $410 for Topaz’s offerings, less than $200 for Luminar versions (4, AI, and Neo).
In fact, if I tally my costs since 2009, DxO runs almost twice as much as the next contender (Topaz, but I own a lot of their stuff, most of which I still use).
Some argue about how much more DxO offers in terms of functionality and usability . . . good for them, but I don’t see it as game-changing, nor as being worth twice as much as anyone else.
Again, I speak for myself. Others will do what they will; I’m not here to change their mind.
I’m voicing my displeasure with their upgrades (both features and cost) in the hope they will rethink their business model.
I could excuse it years ago when they were struggling financially, but if they’re still in trouble, then I say it’s no longer something users can help them with; it’s an internal problem that isn’t likely to be fixed by pumping more money into the company. Certainly not this user’s money.
I’ll use the versions I own and be happy with spending my money on something else. And, frankly, if all of DxO’s products disappeared from my computer, I think I would be just fine . . . other than being out of a lot of money.
Neither in PS nor in Lightroom any file wanders. They stay where you first import them.
That comment makes no sense. You, the user, must designate where the image is saved. Nothing mysterious about that.