#DXO FILMPACK 5 VS VSCO PRO#
Let’s take a look at the eight Nik Collection plug-ins in turn.Īnalog Efex Pro 3, updated in this latest version, can create all manner of classic film looks but goes further with antique and lo-fi camera effects too, such as multiple exposures, movement blur and more. Key features Analog Efex Pro 3 has been redesigned to bring it in line with the rest of the Nik plug-ins, and the preset navigation bar on the left is now much more straightforward to browse and use. However, this time it includes DxO PhotoLab 5 Essential edition, which sells for £129 on its own, so for anyone who doesn’t already have PhotoLab, that’s a terrific deal.
Nik Collection 5 costs $149/£135 for new users and $79/£69 for those upgrading from a previous version.
There are eight plug-ins in total, and while some are designed for image correction, others are for creative effects. Unlike some Russian lenses the glass is not radioactive.DxO Nik Collection 5 is the latest evolution of one the photo editing world’s longest running and best respected plug-in suites. Be aware that the scanning process can lift the shadow detail and give the files a digital look, so you may need to apply a curves adjustment afterwards to restore the tone response of film.
I took a couple or 100 year old cameras to the Antarctic along with the usual digital gear.ī&W 120 film is still available, a developing tank is easy to get and use, and a reasonable scanner cheap to buy.
#DXO FILMPACK 5 VS VSCO SERIES#
The files from the X series really have a different appearance.īetter still, buy a film camera and scan the negatives. To get closer to film you could try buying a Fujifilm camera. On the other hand, they all can give some useful digital effects if you want to change the "look" of your files. I think none of really give a good film simulation and it's probably a waste of time trying. I've used DxO and Silver FX and a few others. Providing you don't invest too much belief in the film simulation's veracity, Silver Efex Pro is a fine program for that task.
#DXO FILMPACK 5 VS VSCO SOFTWARE#
printed on Record Rapid grade 3 developed in Neutol WA" - one might be less scathing, but if a software developer is dipping its hand into someone's pocket for a film simulation, doesn't the customer deserve to know that your "FilmX look" is really not as much as it claims? If these simulations stated something like "PanF in Perceptol 1+20. The same negative would look very different depending on which paper you used, which contrast you chose, which developer you used. Then consider the final output, the print. On thinking of Rodinal, it produced different grain depending how how dilute it was, and how you agitated the developing tank - eg continuously, x seconds per minute.
Consider the developer chemistry - the same film developed in Agfa Rodinal would have very different grain pattern from the same film developed in Ilford Perceptol, for example. Let's put aside how a coloured lens filter would change how the colours are represented as greyscale tones. If you've ever done B&W in the darkroom you'll know that the same film actually looks very different depending on your processing techniques. Just what is a typical look? Can you really define it or bottle this typical look? Really? And I do wonder how far developers (especially those expensive Lightroom presets) are just fleecing the gullible.īut it's mixed with other doubts that I think are less controversial if you think about the task. That's partly just personal preference, or gut instinct about the creative value of simulating a film you might never have used. To be frank, I feel film simulation is such a waste of money.
0 kommentar(er)
