Not that it was ever cheap, but digital has brought the cost within reach of many more people. Film...medium format...etc. etc., it all added up and kept many people from being able to participate.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
Depends on how you look at it. Plugins like Nik with their turnkey controls have made things a lot easier for the novice to produce good looking results. Before you had to master photoshop to produce similar results. If time is money then it's certainly a lot cheaper today to produce quality work.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
I am not so sure. I think photographic and processing skills are still more important than software. And the subjct matter, of course... exotic locales always have an advantage. Look at how many published photos on 1x are from relatively poor countries like Indonesia, Romania, Russia, and the like? Of course, one may also argue that people there have no qualms about using pirated software... but I think they mostly use only (pirated) Photoshop :)
Depends on how you look at it. Plugins like Nik with their turnkey controls have made things a lot easier for the novice to produce good looking results. Before you had to master photoshop to produce similar results. If time is money then it's certainly a lot cheaper today to produce quality work.
True. OTOH, the hobby photog with some skills often has all sorts of time on their hands. You did answer part of the question I had. Can the same end result be hand without Plugins. How hard is it to duplicate Silver EFX Pro in CS5? Is it possible in a practical sense? How about Topaz for tonemapping? I find myself drawn to the end results of these programs when in the hands of elite users (versus some of the bad results these plugins can produce for the beginner), but there are many plugins and they add up to a fair amount of money which I'd rather spend on actual gear. I think that feeling is similar to people who knew they had some skill maybe 20 years ago. They felt if they could just get ahold of a medium format camera and some decent lenses and the money for film and processing they could produce something special. It's like a kid with his nose crammed against the shop window salivating over that new pro bike.
How hard is it to duplicate Silver EFX Pro in CS5? Is it possible in a practical sense? How about Topaz for tonemapping?
That would be an interesting side challenge. I tried something similar several years ago. I used the Lucis Arts filter to produce the cartoony effect in the photo below and then tried to recreate it using just photoshop (alternative version in the photographer notes).
Jason, I think any of my BW images processed via Nik Silver (2009 to current) is achievable in CS4 (my version). Much more efficient in Nik. I don't do anything fancy. In fact, I don't plan to upgrade my CS anytime soon despite using it everyday.
How hard is it to duplicate Silver EFX Pro in CS5? Is it possible in a practical sense? How about Topaz for tonemapping?
That would be an interesting side challenge. I tried something similar several years ago. I used the Lucis Arts filter to produce the cartoony effect in the photo below and then tried to recreate it using just photoshop (alternative version in the photographer notes).
That WOULD be interesting. Awesome list of your steps. That's something to really sink my teeth into. Some things I would never, ever think to do. Burn in lighten mode? Explain that to me.
That WOULD be interesting. Awesome list of your steps. That's something to really sink my teeth into. Some things I would never, ever think to do. Burn in lighten mode? Explain that to me.
I don't think I have the layered psd for that photo any more but it probably should have said multiply mode.
I think there's been some great feedback in this thread... I find myself in general agreement with most of the opinion. There are a few plug-ins for which no real equivalent exists in Ps; tonemapping seems to be one of the more difficult to replicate.
In general, if there is a Ps process to replicate a particular plug-in, my opinion is that it should not be a lot more difficult to run than the plug-in itself, assuming that you've saved an action to do it. I'm always of the opinion that it's more valuable to know how to do something using the basic Ps tools than to rely on plug-ins.
That WOULD be interesting. Awesome list of your steps. That's something to really sink my teeth into. Some things I would never, ever think to do. Burn in lighten mode? Explain that to me.
I don't think I have the layered psd for that photo any more but it probably should have said multiply mode.
So, then the question becomes, which plug-ins are indispensible or irreplacable?
I used the 30-day trial of Silver EFX pro and I liked it. I've seen some awesome Silver EFX conversions.
I have never, not even once, used Topaz. Am I a fool?
Not that it was ever cheap, but digital has brought the cost within reach of many more people. Film...medium format...etc. etc., it all added up and kept many people from being able to participate.
But now I've noticed that many elite photographers are relying more and more on processing packages like Nik and others which are not cheap. Photoshop alone (already expensive) seems to be no longer enough to reach the level of a site like 1x.com. I wonder if others feel the same way?
Just wanted to have the discussion of the day.
Anything you can do with Nik or other packages, you can do directly in Photoshop. The packages just streamline the process.
If you are making a living from photography, the cost of the software is part of doing business. If you are a hobbyist, you either pay for them or you don't.
So, then the question becomes, which plug-ins are indispensible or irreplacable?
I used the 30-day trial of Silver EFX pro and I liked it. I've seen some awesome Silver EFX conversions.
I have never, not even once, used Topaz. Am I a fool?
Haven't tried Silver EFX, but then again I have invested a fair amount of time in devising my own style and methods of B+W and toned conversions; I've been quite satisfied with my results, and the feedback I've received from others has also been quite positive.
IMHO, most of the NIK tools are well-done, but are incredibly over-priced. Silver EFX is a prime example. I mean, seriously? $200 for a plug-in? That I can equal with basic Ps tools? NO thanks.
So, then the question becomes, which plug-ins are indispensible or irreplacable?
I used the 30-day trial of Silver EFX pro and I liked it. I've seen some awesome Silver EFX conversions.
I have never, not even once, used Topaz. Am I a fool?
Topaz is awesome! I use it pretty much on everything in some way. And, it's not an arm and a leg to buy (least expensive of any plug ins you're going to buy, and to date all updates have been free). At least try them. They have fully functional 30 day free trials.
I've always been intrigued by Nik's viveza product and wonder why I've never really seen anyone talk about it here. That looks like a massive time-saver, and perfect for controlling exposure values and highlights/focal points without time-consuming layers work or goofy HDR results.
Of course I need a hardware upgrade, and then a OS upgrade, and then an applications upgrade before I can try it. So I'm a bit stuck with my goofy HDR at the moment.
So, then the question becomes, which plug-ins are indispensible or irreplacable?
I used the 30-day trial of Silver EFX pro and I liked it. I've seen some awesome Silver EFX conversions.
I have never, not even once, used Topaz. Am I a fool?
Topaz is awesome! I use it pretty much on everything in some way. And, it's not an arm and a leg to buy (least expensive of any plug ins you're going to buy, and to date all updates have been free). At least try them. They have fully functional 30 day free trials.
I am going to do that. Adjust and Detail seem like good places to start.
So, then the question becomes, which plug-ins are indispensible or irreplacable?
I used the 30-day trial of Silver EFX pro and I liked it. I've seen some awesome Silver EFX conversions.
I have never, not even once, used Topaz. Am I a fool?
Topaz is awesome! I use it pretty much on everything in some way. And, it's not an arm and a leg to buy (least expensive of any plug ins you're going to buy, and to date all updates have been free). At least try them. They have fully functional 30 day free trials.
I am going to do that. Adjust and Detail seem like good places to start.
Detail is my most used. Adjust is more "fun" type stuff. Though it's all customizable (how much you use). Clean & simplify are also "fun" type filters.
I am going to do that. Adjust and Detail seem like good places to start.
I'll take up the challenge, but in a different direction. Since I haven't actually tried Silver EFX, I'll do so on the trial plan, and see how it compares to my current workflow. I'll need to wait a week or so to start on this, though, to get to a point where I can spend enough time with it to make it worthwhile.
I've been enjoying the "How I made it" threads at 1x.com. They follow a standard description of the photo and can be highly informative. We've gotten away from that here on DPC. There, because the forums, I think, are a novelty, people are still putting effort into their descriptions.
While there are tutorials here, and I value them highly. A welcome addition would be a well moderated "how to" forum, where all the OT stuff gets removed. Yes, I have been known to be one of the OT offenders, but I would try to play nice, and wouldn't mind if an OT post from me got yanked...
