![]() ![]() I think I came close, but not quite the same. I went back in On1 and tried to duplicate the above. For one thing, the highlights are better rendered and the scene doesn’t seem as busy. Still a mess, but a better mess, at least to my eyes. It’s not awful, especially at full size, but even at 1000 pixels, it lacks. This is what On1 gave me after much playing around with it. What makes this photo difficult to convert to B&W is the large amounts of detail, deep and light greens, and the bright reds and yellows. I might give the barest of nods to the CFP2 version but that could change depending on the lighting in the office. I’m not enamored with either version and I could pick either just for showing the people climbing onto the fallen Redwood. I mean, it’s easy to render, but it doesn’t look good.Īgain, a JPG version of the RAW file as-shot.Īnd these are the color rendering from each program. and this particular photo is - in my opinion - difficult to render in B&W. Why are these here, then? Remember, I’m doing comparisons. This next photo is one that I will not submit, so none of the B&W conversions are numbered because they are not under consideration. which On1 still failed to meet.īy the way, I’m numbering the photos because there will be a poll at the end of the post. I often envision what I would like the B&W version of a photo to look like, and those two exceeded my expectations. Both of those were quick to obtain versus me having to play around with the ON1 conversions and still not being happy with what I got (at some point, you cut your losses and go with whatever you have). Here, again, I must give the nod to SFP2. but two versions of the SFP2 conversions, one of which I might use for the submission to Monochrome Madness. It’s much easier comparing them in the gallery at the end of this post, but if you click on each, they will open up in different tabs and you can switch between them to see the difference. Looking at those two, I would give a slight edge to the CFP2. Pinline is On1, and the rough shaded border is from the Nik modules. you’ll be able to identify where each photo came from by the border. ![]() I sometimes will punch these up a bit more in Lightroom, but for this comparison I left the photos as they were output from the respective programs. So, I picked this photo of the same area. Why? Because a portrait orientation appears bigger even though both photos have a maximum size of 1000 pixels. But, I didn’t want to go back and work on that photo. When I saw that, I decided to run comparisons with On1 Effects 10.5 (hence, On1). There is no SmugMug gallery for these as I’m mostly playing around, but if you click on the photos, they open up at a 1000 pixel size (the maximum size for Leanne’s MM posts).Īs usual, WordPress does a lousy job of rendering the photos, especially in B&W. but it worked well to give me this using Silver Fex Pro 2 (hence called SFP2). The above is not my typical post processing for a color photo. I ran it through Color Fex Pro 2 (CFP2 from now on) specifically with the intention of prepping it for B&W conversion. That’s a JPG of what the RAW file looks like. ![]() Well, I immediately thought of this photo from the Place of Refuge, here on the Big Island. Version Effects 10.5, I use on nearly every photo. On1’s latest version is On1 Photo Raw 2017 but I can’t recommend something I have and don’t use. I thought that would be a great opportunity to do a comparison between my normal go-to software - On1 Effects 10.5 - and two of Nik’s modules, Color Efx Pro 2 and Silver Efx Pro 2.Īs it turns out, both programs are free. For the first Thursday of September, it’s “Tree or Trees.” Leanne Cole’s Monochrome Madness - a weekly offering of monochrome images submitted by multiple photographers - once a month has a theme. This is a post about photography software, specifically, a comparison between Google’s Nik Collection and On1 Photo 10.5. Photography, Fiction, Travel, and Opinions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |