This is a post about photography software, specifically, a comparison between Google’s Nik Collection and On1 Photo 10.5. It probably won’t be short. Proceed accordingly.
Leanne Cole’s Monochrome Madness — a weekly offering of monochrome images submitted by multiple photographers — once a month has a theme. For the first Thursday of September, it’s “Tree or Trees.”
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.
As it turns out, both programs are free. On1’s latest version is On1 Photo Raw 2017 but I can’t recommend something I have and don’t use. Version Effects 10.5, I use on nearly every photo.
So, trees . . .
Well, I immediately thought of this photo from the Place of Refuge, here on the Big Island.
That’s a JPG of what the RAW file looks like. I ran it through Color Fex Pro 2 (CFP2 from now on) specifically with the intention of prepping it for B&W conversion. This is what I got:
The above is not my typical post processing for a color photo . . . but it worked well to give me this using Silver Fex Pro 2 (hence called SFP2).
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).
As usual, WordPress does a lousy job of rendering the photos, especially in B&W. They look better larger.
When I saw that, I decided to run comparisons with On1 Effects 10.5 (hence, On1). But, I didn’t want to go back and work on that photo. Why? Because a portrait orientation appears bigger even though both photos have a maximum size of 1000 pixels.
So, I picked this photo of the same area.
Here’s my typical On1 processing . . .
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.
Here’s the one from CFP2 . . .
Notice the different borders . . . you’ll be able to identify where each photo came from by the border. Pinline is On1, and the rough shaded border is from the Nik modules.
Looking at those two, I would give a slight edge to the CFP2. 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.
How did the B&W conversions do?
There was one ON1 version I liked . . .
. . . but two versions of the SFP2 conversions, one of which I might use for the submission to Monochrome Madness.
Here, again, I must give the nod to SFP2. 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).
I often envision what I would like the B&W version of a photo to look like, and those two exceeded my expectations. Perhaps I have low expectations . . . which On1 still failed to meet.
By the way, I’m numbering the photos because there will be a poll at the end of the post.
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. Why are these here, then? Remember, I’m doing comparisons. and this particular photo is — in my opinion — difficult to render in B&W. I mean, it’s easy to render, but it doesn’t look good.
Again, a JPG version of the RAW file as-shot.
And these are the color rendering from each program . . .
I’m not enamored with either version and I could pick either just for showing the people climbing onto the fallen Redwood. I might give the barest of nods to the CFP2 version but that could change depending on the lighting in the office.
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. This is what On1 gave me after much playing around with it.
It’s not awful, especially at full size, but even at 1000 pixels, it lacks . . . something.
Here’s the output from SFP2 . . .
Still a mess, but a better mess, at least to my eyes. For one thing, the highlights are better rendered and the scene doesn’t seem as busy. I went back in On1 and tried to duplicate the above . . .
I think I came close, but not quite the same. However, at least they are close enough that I could go with either one, but the SFP2 version took a minute or so to generate whereas I played with the ON1 settings for about five minutes.
OK, back to choosing a photo for Monochrome Madness Tree(s) Theme week.
I could have sworn I had better photos of a Joshua Tree, but this is the one I liked the best. I’ll also be able to use it when the theme will be “rocks.”
Here are the color renderings . . .
Pretty close, I would say.
For the B&W versions, I cheated . . . I went different ways for each, so we can’t really compare them directly.
On1 10.5 is free now, but I paid for the original suite, so in comparison to Nik’s offerings, I would say that Nik is a heck of a program. Easy to use, powerful, and some of the tools let me do stuff quickly that I can’t do as easily with On1 or even other software I own.
I will repeat myself . . . get this software. It’s free. There may come a time as the operating systems change when it will no longer work . . . but it’s FREE and you can use it now.
Wait, just a cherry-picking minute, you say. You’re using RAW files; what about us poor slobs who work with JPGs?
Fair question, and don’t sell put yourselves down by identifying with slobs.
I’ve been shooting a lot with my P900 and it only outputs JPGs (curse you, Nikon!) so here’s three different photos (well, they are almost the same) and the respective color and B&W processing.
OK, I purposefully tried to process those differently, but the next two sets do mix things up and show the two programs come close to duplicating each others outputs. Rather, I can use them to get whatever look I want.
I noticed I was adding a bit of vignette darkening on the Nik photos, as well as a gradient.
That gives the impression the ON1 photos are “cleaner” which, in fact, they are. Trust me when I say the SFP2 photos can be just as clean.
As I said, even though it may not look like it on all of these, Silver Fex Pro 2 is — in my opinion — the better program for B&W conversion. On some photos, it was also a clear winner for rendering color photos.
In fact, let me redo the last photo . . .
Did I mention it’s free, powerful, and free?
Anyway, here’s the poll. To be clear, I’m fairly sure I’m going with either Photo 1 or Photo 04 . . . or, maybe Photo 06 . . . or . . . oh, heck, I don’t know. I’ll decide tomorrow, but I’m curious what readers think.
You can pick up to three photos.
Here’s the Gallery. I’ll group all of the B&W photos first, making them easier to go through and compare:
That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.
Note: if you are not reading this blog post at DisperserTracks.com, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website. Could be they also torture small mammals.
Please, if you are considering bestowing me recognition beyond commenting below, refrain from doing so. I will decline blogger-to-blogger awards. I appreciate the intent behind it, but I prefer a comment thanking me for turning you away from a life of crime, religion, or making you a better person in some other way. That would mean something to me.
If you wish to know more, please read below.
Note: to those who may click on “like”, or rate the post; if you do not hear from me, know that I am sincerely appreciative, and I thank you for noticing what I do.
. . . my FP ward . . . chieken shit.
Finally, if you interpret anything on this blog as me asking or wanting pity, sympathy, or complaining about my life, or asking for help and advice, know you’re likely missing my subtle mix of irony, sarcasm, and humor.