Postprocessing one can and can't understand

[DanK]

This is a follow-up to a thread in which Manfred helpfully suggested I try using Nik Color Efex on one of my images.

When I edit using Photoshop and Lightroom, I usually know what the adjustments are doing. For example, you can describe precisely what a curve does. Lightroom has made this harder, as it is hard to get complete descriptions of some of the sliders, e.g., the clarity slider. However, even in those cases, there is a halfway complete description available.

Not so with Nik. You can find DxO's description of the Color Efex filters here. To take just one example, the overall description of the Pro Contrast tool is this:

Provides advanced control over the color and contrast of an image by analyzing each image and creating a unique enhancement specific for that image.

The descriptions of the sliders are only modestly less uninformative. For example, here is the description for the dynamic contrast slider:

Adjusts the contrast of each object throughout the image based on the distribution of tonality found in the image. This unique control automatically adjusts different areas to varying degrees.

Note that both explicitly refer to the software taking control--it analyzes, and it adjusts.

The results, in my experience, can be impressive. However, it makes me uncomfortable to edit this way. It's a bit of 'let me pull this lever and see what it does,' instead of something like 'this would look better if I brightened midtones in this particular area, which I can do by...'

Am I the only one who has that reaction?

[xpatUSA]

I had much the same reaction (to your quotes, I've never used DxO anything). Having said that, I am no fan of DxO anyway.

I give the benefit of the doubt to the site's native language ... maybe the French is clearer ...

[Donald]

It very much depends how you approach photography.

Dan says, "It's a bit of 'let me pull this lever and see what it does,'" and says he feels uncomfortable with this. I on the other hand feel perfectly fine and I'm more interested in what it can do rather than how it does it. I'll happily tweak sliders and see if it gives me what I want and I don't need to know what happening under the bonnet/hood.

Both approaches are perfectly fine. It just that we approach our image making in very different ways.

[Manfred M]

Dan - I have similar misgivings about the plug-ins and am not someone who loves the idea of a "black box" solution.

I've used the Nik Collection since around 2010 (well before Nik was bought by Google), so have developed a reasonably good feeling for it over time. I use this software much less than I used to and often I will only use it when I am either making a "quick and dirty" edit to show a concept here at CiC or in my own work when I am working on concepts.

Unfortunately, for some of these tools, there is no easy way to accomplish an effect that takes a few seconds with a plug-in versus minutes or even hours of work in Lightroom / ACR + Photoshop. In some cases their effects are unique and I have not been able to duplicate the output. I have tried and used plug-ins from various companies from time to time including Nik / DxO Labs, Topaz, On One, etc.

They are a tool and they do have their place. I use them when I find that they save me time and effort.

[DanK]

Manfred,

I think you and I are on the same page. Sometimes the ease of use and impact make it worth it.

I'll give a more concrete example of why I dislike not knowing what tools actually do. I add some degree of local contrast to most of my photographs other than photos of faces. I have at least four tools for doing this: a local contrast adjustment via USM in photoshop, the clarity slider in Lightroom, the texture slider in Lightroom, and the structure adjustments in Nik. I don't want to move the photo into different pieces of software and try all four to compare the results; I want to know which tool is most likely to give me the effect I want. I tried sorting this out several months ago, when the texture slider was added. With some work--Adobe doesn't simply tell the user--I was able to cobble together a partial explanation of the differences between texture and clarity: the frequency range they affect, and the fact that clarity includes an entirely different adjustment, an change in midtone contrast. So for the two that are easiest to compare, I usually know which to try. I was entirely unable to find out what Nik's structure adjustment does. I know what Photoshop's local clarity adjustment does--that's the only one that is fully explained in readily accessible sources--but I still don't fully understand how it differs from texture. This is a waste of time and makes my editing even less competent than it ideally would be.

I understand that vendors may want to keep some black-box mystique, but it would make work a lot easier if they explained what the tools do. Imagine hiring a carpenter who doesn't understand which type of power saw is appropriate for a given task and has to try a bunch to see.

Dan

[Stagecoach]

The results, in my experience, can be impressive. However, it makes me uncomfortable to edit this way. It's a bit of 'let me pull this lever and see what it does,' instead of something like 'this would look better if I brightened midtones in this particular area, which I can do by...'

Am I the only one who has that reaction?

I'm a long term fan of Nik Colour Efex 'Pro Contrast' and have no concern that I'm unclear of exactly how it has achieved the results. I suspect that the more familiarity with it one gets along with the ability to recognise an image that can be enhanced with it the more confident one becomes.

What I do find impressive is its highlight protection ability enabling batch throughput with confidence of not blowing areas.

So for me, I don't worry about the 'how' only the result.

[rpcrowe]

I use NIK Software quite extensively but, my favorite portion of NIK is Viveza II which doesn't have any presets involved however, it is quite a powerful program.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

I think you and I are on the same page. Sometimes the ease of use and impact make it worth it.

I'll give a more concrete example of why I dislike not knowing what tools actually do. I add some degree of local contrast to most of my photographs other than photos of faces. I have at least four tools for doing this: a local contrast adjustment via USM in photoshop, the clarity slider in Lightroom, the texture slider in Lightroom, and the structure adjustments in Nik. I don't want to move the photo into different pieces of software and try all four to compare the results; I want to know which tool is most likely to give me the effect I want. I tried sorting this out several months ago, when the texture slider was added. With some work--Adobe doesn't simply tell the user--I was able to cobble together a partial explanation of the differences between texture and clarity: the frequency range they affect, and the fact that clarity includes an entirely different adjustment, an change in midtone contrast. So for the two that are easiest to compare, I usually know which to try. I was entirely unable to find out what Nik's structure adjustment does. I know what Photoshop's local clarity adjustment does--that's the only one that is fully explained in readily accessible sources--but I still don't fully understand how it differs from texture. This is a waste of time and makes my editing even less competent than it ideally would be.

I understand that vendors may want to keep some black-box mystique, but it would make work a lot easier if they explained what the tools do. Imagine hiring a carpenter who doesn't understand which type of power saw is appropriate for a given task and has to try a bunch to see.

Dan

Dan we are very definitely on the same page here and this definitely reflects in my workflow.

There are similar but not identically named functions across different pieces of editing software. Sometimes similar functions have different names yet perform similar functions across different software packages. The results are often not identical, so when one one tries to back off a previous edit done in one application, it is impossible to get back to the original state because of differences in the implementation of similar functionality in the other program. I found that ACR / Lightroom versus Photoshop showed this too, but I have not tested more current versions of this software.

I use a minimalist approach in the raw convertor and then do all my "heavy lifting" in Photoshop. I do not "roundtrip" to the raw convertor to more editing. I generally use an ACR or Capture One -> Photoshop workflow, but will occasionally use Lightroom or DxO PhotoLab -> Photoshop as well.

There are times where I find that the "black box" approach is the only way to get a retouch to work. In a recent piece with a lot of snow in it, I used Nik HDR Efex Pro PLUS Unsharp Mast on a single exposure to bring out texture in parts of the image. I have not been able to find any other solution that works.

Unfortunately, I find that many vendors are good at pushing out decent software, but the user's guides / manuals often leave a lot to be desired and it is up to the user to play around to figure out how to get the best out of these packages.

[Shadowman]

I don't know if this author (Tony Corbell) ever updated for the latest version but he did a good job of explaining the original tools in this book. I haven't tried the DxO version yet so I'm sure somethings have changed and a lot was added.
https://www.amazon.com/Nik-Software-.../dp/111802222X

[DanK]

I don't know if this author (Tony Corbell) ever updated for the latest version but he did a good job of explaining the original tools in this book. I haven't tried the DxO version yet so I'm sure somethings have changed and a lot was added.
https://www.amazon.com/Nik-Software-.../dp/111802222X

Thanks for the link. I just ordered a used copy from Goodwill of Silicon Valley. I didn't know this before, but they sell used books to support their training programs.

From what I have read, very little is new in the initial DxO version. The main changes from what I have read are under the hood, with fewer conflicts with newer versions of Adobe products.