In the forest

[Diane Miller]

Still going through the forest shots I did on a recent trip, and found this one I like. I did a touch of Topaz Simplify and then used Nik's new Analog Efex Pro, Wet Plate 3 preset with some slight crop and cloning tweaks and some small local Curves adjustments. Their effect is similar to the treatmeant I usually give infrared images.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Diane,

Greetings. Is the, um, focus vignette from the Analog Efex? I find myself wondering what this would look like without it. I really like the feel of the central portion of the image, I think where Simplify is in play. I particularly like the layers of shades growing lighter in the bg. Thanks for posting.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Diane Miller]

Yes, the OOF edges are from the so-called Bokeh setting in the Wet Plate 3 preset. (Yet another misuse of the term Bokeh.) The Wet Plate preset gives tonalities I haven't been able to replicate in Nik's Silver Efex, and I've been intrigued by it. Need to try harder....

Here it is with the Bokeh and Dust and Scratches sections turned off. There's an odd rectangular artifact in the lower center that I need to fix.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Diane,

The repost works for me. I can see a pattern toward a tunnel that the OP accentuates. Perhaps a slight brightening on the lower right would complete the effect in the repost?

I see two rectangular artifacts, near bottom center... odd, that. One ends in the middle of trunk, then a lighter one just below maybe just a line or maybe just from small jpeg.

I do like the image a lot. The depth pulls one in.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Dennis Bishop]

I liked the image, including the blur vignette, from the outset. The scene and the way you composed it are very striking, and I think the vignette focuses the viewer's attention strongly on the foreground tree. The Analog Efex preset works for me, too. (I'm glad you mentioned it because I have the Nik Collection and hadn't been notified about it, so I've contacted them.)

[gary ellwein]

A very pleasing combination of texture and tone. I prefer the original unaltered image.

[Cheryl Slechta]

Hi, Diane, I prefer the OP also. Lovely image:S3:

[Hazel Grant]

I prefer the original wout the vignette. It is a bit too blurry and distracting for me. but it is your work and that's what counts. Obviously from the other posted comments, the presentation is debatable, so make it what you like.

[Judy Howle]

I really like the re-post. Great tones and layers in the scene and a nice comp.

[Nancy Bell]

My vote is for the repost. Diane, you have a great eye for these forest scenes. What would look like a jumble of leaves and trunks to me, you find just the right place where the trunks, branches and leaves come together in a very interesting composition. I will have to look at Nik Analog.

Dennis, you are lucky. Nik/Google automatically added this for me and in the process crashed my computer! Fortunately I determined Nik was the problem and a phone call straightened it all out.

[Kerry Perkins]

Hi Diane, I like the repost better also. I use a combination of blur and dark vignette in a lot of my portrait work, mostly to pull the eye into a central element like a face or flower. My eye doesn't see this image as having a central feature so I guess that's my justification. :c3: I like the tonal range and serene feel to the image also. I've been spared the Nik download disaster thanks to the fact that I don't allow spurious access to my computer from the outside. I use a program that blocks network access unless I specifically allow it. I think I'll be waiting for the updated version before I take that plunge. I have read lots of horror stories about it, including incompatibility with some GPU chips.Those block artifacts are strange, but do appear to be JPEG compression issues.

[Diane Miller]

Good reasoning about the vignette, Kerry. I had posted both versions on a private forum that is just some photography friends and didn't get much enthusiasm for the blur there.

The strange rectangular thing is is the master file, caused by some setting in that Wet Plate preset. Haven't gone back to try to pinpoint it, but will. Easily removed, though.

I just updated to the Google version the other day with no major issues (on a Mac) but I'm getting the odd result of duplicate Nik process layers being added -- but not consistently. Something else to track down.

[Kerry Perkins]

Diane, did you check to make sure only one version of the plugins is in your plugins folder? I have read of people having that issue and they found that there were two instances of the plugin being applied.

[Diane Miller]

Hmmm -- good thought. The email in reply to my inquiry about how to update to the Google version said "There is no reason to uninstall the previous versions first." I took that to mean the prior Nik versions, so didn't. And now I see there is both a Google folder and a Nik folder in Plugins.

Now to research the safe way to get rid of the Nik version -- I assume it's OK to just delete it and restart PS?

I've been unable to locate the source of the odd artifact -- I can't find it in any of the settings in the Wet Plate preset, so I re-processed the image with the settings the same, and tossed that flawed layer. Some kind of a processing glitch?? Who knows.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Hmmm -- good thought. The email in reply to my inquiry about how to update to the Google version said "There is no reason to uninstall the previous versions first." I took that to mean the prior Nik versions, so didn't. And now I see there is both a Google folder and a Nik folder in Plugins.

Now to research the safe way to get rid of the Nik version -- I assume it's OK to just delete it and restart PS?


Diane,

If you mean that in your Plug-ins directory you have two folders Nik and Google. Just moving the Nik folder to a new backup location (out of the Plug-ins directory) and restarting PS should do the trick. Then you can discard or keep the Nik folder for posterity at your choosing. This is a conservative approach. (What a poor update by Google!)

Oh, I should say that this doesn't completely remove the old version since what is in the Plug-ins directory is just shortcuts (I don't recall if they call them that in MacOS maybe links). The actual plug-ins are elsewhere.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Diane Miller]

Yes, that's what is there, the 2 folders each with its own set of plug-ins. The Nik one, of course, doesn't have the new Analog Efex, and I'm not getting two copies of the processed layer with it.

Also odd - LR shows the filters in Photo > Edit In but shows 2 copies of Sharpener, 3 and 3.0. Never noticed that before, but maybe it was there. I never use the Nik stuff from LR directly -- prefer to do it from PS.

I've been looking on the web for any info on the double=processing problem and haven't found it yet. I was pretty sure it was safe just to remove the older Nik folder, but good to get some confirmation -- can always put it back if it causes problems.

Thanks! They could put something about that in the directions, don't you think? (Or better, in the installation....)

[Anita Bower]

I like to start my comments before reading what others have written. My first impression is of the graceful, slender branches arching beautifully through the center of the image. Lovely in B & W. Another excellent forest composition. Just right amount of detail in the center. I wished the edges were not blurred. Now, to read the comments.
I prefer the repost. Interesting how people differ on what they like.
I barely have time to participate in this forum, so haven't ventured to do anything in your private one.

[Diane Miller]

I've just been playing with this one some more -- how about a split-toned version?

[Anita Bower]

I like the second version best.

[Dennis Bishop]

I definitely like the split-tone, but I'm not sure how I like it relative to the other two.