Why do you say this, Mark? Integration into PL is the single most important value add that DxO could build into a PL/Nik upgrade.
The following is a copy of the argument I made against this happening earlier in this thread. Your point seems rational and reasonable until one analyzes the effort involved to do it and the resulting massive bloat in PhotoLab.
"Because the effort required for full integration of this massive amount of software would be way too extreme. The annual updates to the Nik Collection only add limited new functionality to a subset of the Nik modules. Complete Integration of the entire Nik Collection into Photolab would require very significant design modifications and an overall effort dozens of times greater then the normal annual upgrade to Nik which would still have to be performed.
In addition, the PL interface would become bloated with hundreds of additional filters and features. Performance would suffer and the learning curve would become extreme. All this cost and effort and time would only be useful for those who use PhotoLab and the Nik Collection. It is simply not going to happenā¦ever. The best we can probably hope for is that some future version of the Nik modules will accept .DNG files as input and return updated .DNG files for further editing in PhotoLab. What could also be done in PhotoLab would be the creation of Preset libraries which could be similar to those in the Nik Collection but that would not be an integration of Nik functionality"
3 Likes
I use both PL and NIK and have no wish to integrate them
When I use NIK it is as a plugin from Affinity after I have done what I want in PL. I have never felt the need to even send a file fromn
For me this is a simple workflow
I would rather PL focuses on what PL is very good at doing - processing RAW and leave the rest to pixel editors like PS or Affinity
2 Likes
Your argument isnāt unreasonable, Mark, and is probably the most realistic prediction of what will happen. That said, it is easy for me to imagine an interface where, in addition to the PhotoLibrary and Customize tabs, the PL interface contains tabs for each module of the Nik Collectionāor at least the three or four modules containing functionality that isnāt already duplicated in PL. Iām imagining CEP, AEF, SEP, and maybe HDREP tabs. I donāt see this approach resulting in an interface that is any more bloated that the current interface. Each tab could present the same interface available in the current module, but accessible within PL.
Now Iām under no illusions as to the amount of effort this would require on the part of the developers. It would certainly be more than they currently expend on the annual Nik āupgradesā. But, speaking frankly, I think the existing level of effort put into the annual Nik upgrades is pretty pathetic. The value added isā¦low.
I guess a personās feelings on this would depend on how they use these three classes of tools. Iām 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 canāt 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 havenāt found anything worthwhile using it for the I couldnāt do with PhotoLab
1 Like
To me thatās the only logical way to use Nik, since Nik was originally coded to compliment pixel editors.
4 Likes
Iām 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 photoās summer exhibition, with some images being printed at A2 borderless, for mounting on 5mm foam board.
The image are in various states of āreadinessā 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 Canonās own excellent B&W mode for B&W prints on baryta paper.
I see absolutely no need to go via Affinity Photo unless Iām adding any artwork such s a border. Certainly no need to use any of the Nik tools and donāt see the need for plugins as I am working with a TIFF file, which can be simply opened in any other app.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Layers are the reason I use Nik via Ps (sometimes), especially with smart objects.
1 Like
My workflow is:
RAW ā PL ā Tiff (saved on my Tiffs folders, separated from RAWs)
TIFF ā 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 ( donāt laugh ) the old Nikon NX-2 to clean any missed spot on TIFF if needed (the best)
ADCSee browser ā 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 āSave Asā if needed. The only slow thing in the whole workflow is when applied DeepPrime but for the results no problems at all.
I donāt 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 donāt make sense integrate NIK with PL.
I understand all your points and Iām 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.
Mark
1 Like
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 donāt 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 doesnāt. 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 isnāt convoluted at all. I have 1 workflow that readily adapts to my needs rather than multiple workflows for each type of image I do.
1 Like
You are right ā the workflow depends on the pic / what Iām going to do with
-
PL to develop the raw-file as far as possible
ā incl. export to Nik 3.3, if something can be achieved better / simpler
(always SilverEfexPro for B&W) -
PS (AP ā¦) for advanced edits & corrections
ā incl. Nik on layers
(always SilverEfexPro for B&W, multiple layers ā¦) -
PS for FineArt printing
ā always separate print version at final size
ā w/ soft proof & corrections corresponding to the paper !
ā Nik OutputSharpener (Auto ā¦)
ā custom frame & borders, text & copyright -
photobooks (to order)
ā w/ missing soft proof in PL ā have to include LR in the workflow
1 Like
Precisely, layers.
1 Like
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. Itās 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 donāt use a Pixel Editor. However on the rare occasions I use NIK I open it directly from PL5.
1 Like
Black and white in Silver Efex are in another league from FilmPack (tested on my own photos, and Iām much more comfortable in PhotoLab than SFx).
The situation is probably similar with Color Efex emulsions. Iām not a big emulsions/artificial distressed film look guy so I havenāt done substantial head to head testing but when I did play with Color Efex the film look results were impressive.
I donāt know how many people are trying to run the ship at DxO but theyāre running it into the ground. These āupgradesā to new versions are not upgrades at all. Each one seems to be partial upgrades to the āCollectionā and a way for them to simply slap a new version number on it and expect customers to pay more money.
4 Likes