Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cannot pass more than one image to HDR Efex pro plugin from Ultimate 9

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cannot pass more than one image to HDR Efex pro plugin from Ultimate 9

    Using the Nik plugin HDR Efex Pro 2 I cannot select and pass more than one image from within ACDSee ultimate 9.
    HDR on one image, although not useless, does rather miss the point.
    Can anyone do this?
    Thankyou.

  • #2
    You have to activate the multi image support in the configuration of the plugin in ACDSee Pro / Ultimate. It can be found where you add new plugins.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SCX View Post
      You have to activate the multi image support in the configuration of the plugin in ACDSee Pro / Ultimate. It can be found where you add new plugins.
      Imho that doesn't make sense. "Multi image support" only is an option for external editors, not for Adobe PS plugins that don't have this option in AC.

      You could assign "Silver Efex Pro 2.exe" as external editor with multi image support. But afaik "Silver Efex Pro 2.exe" doesn't allow to load any raw files. You could indeed run it with multiple jpegs, but using a hdr tool with 8Bit images seams crazy to me.

      The PS plugin "Silver Efex Pro 2.8bf" can combine several images, but the edit mode of AC can only pass one image to any PS plugin.

      Afais AC is useless to create hdr images from a set of raw files, and I'd never do this with a set of jpegs. I currently don't see any work around for AC .





      Comment


      • #4
        Thankyou for your replies SCX and Emil. It was good of you both to reply so quickly.
        I have looked at the Tools/options/Edit mode settings where you add plugins but can find nowhere in the dialogue to set plugin properties.
        However, in Manage mode you can configure external editors to use multiple images.
        I did this for HDR Efex pro and tested it out.
        It loads multiple jpegs but not RAW files.

        So, with your help I am part way there, so thanks again.

        Comment


        • #5
          Sorry I didn't thought of using 8bf plugins, since I still use only a Pro version of ACDSee. But it works with the NIK tools set as external editors.

          ACDSee sends the original files to external editors and HDR Efex can't deal with RAW. You have to export the RAWs as TIF first and send these TIFs to the external Editor.
          Last edited by SCX; 06-08-2016, 11:12 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            My advice for using NIK HDR Efex is to select the 3 raw images and do a batch convert to tif or jpg. (I don't do ANY editing with these images in ACDSee)
            Then I send the 3 converted bit mapped images to HDR Efex and process them from that point. If, after the HDR composite, the image needs further editing, I would then edit the composited image in ACDSee Ultimate 9.

            That being said, I think Photomatix Pro 5 is a better tool, and integrates MUCH better with ACDSee, although it is a fully supported commercial product (i.e. it Costs money!). See my comparison article of the two below:

            http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2...f-nik-hdr.html

            Comment


            • #7
              HDR Efex creates not very natural looking images. I use it because I got it free. But if you get used to it, the results are getting better. Maybe your testimage had the potential to show the weaknesses of HDR Efex. In your example Photomatix clearly won the competition. But I don't know, what you did in HDR Efex.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SCX View Post
                HDR Efex creates not very natural looking images. I use it because I got it free. But if you get used to it, the results are getting better. Maybe your testimage had the potential to show the weaknesses of HDR Efex. In your example Photomatix clearly won the competition. But I don't know, what you did in HDR Efex.

                You are correct. As I said in my article, I was/am a newbie at HDR photography and my level of expertise was roughly at the same level for both products. I consider what I did in that article was to compare the two products from the perspective of a 'newbie'. It was not meant to be a definitive and exhaustive 'shootout' between the two. My goal in the test was to produce as natural a composite image as possible. Ideally, I would get my test image from each tool to look as closely as possible to each other.

                What I did with both products was a 2 step process. My first pass was to create an HDR image without regard to the output. I wanted to get a feel for the process,and a feel for the places in the process where the sort of changes I wanted to make made the most sense. Then, I started over in an attempt to produce a photo I liked. I think I did reasonably well with both. I have no doubt that more practice would make me much more skillful in using either product,

                However, I felt that Photomatix was easier, overall, to get the results I wanted. And most certainly, Photomatix was MUCH easier to integrate with ACDSee. And most importantly, to me, at least was that Photomatix was able to use my orf raw images directly, while NIK HDR Efex has no raw capability, meaning that I had to convert the raw images to tif or jpg without editing.

                As I said in the article, NIK HDR Efex is probably the best free tool out there right now, and if I hadn't already bought Photomatix I probably would have just used NIK HDR Efex. But I believe Photomatix the superior product for a newbie, and I believe, the superior product for ACDSee users.

                Maybe ACDSee Ultimate V11 or V12 will have its own set of composite tools. I for one, would love to see not only a native ACDSee HDR tool, but a focus stacking tool as well!
                Last edited by Glen Barrington; 06-10-2016, 05:26 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A good HDR program is not easy to create. Auto-align and de-ghosting seem to be quite hard to do.

                  I agree with Photomatix beeing better than HDR Efex. I just wanted to say, that your results with HDR Efex improve over time.
                  Last edited by SCX; 06-10-2016, 09:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Maybe in addition to the HDR programs, because of the trouble (sometimes the auto align failes, sometimes deghosting doesn't work, sometimes it just don't look good - maybe a HDR-Efex problem), I often end up using a single RAW file with a underexposed image and work on this image in the RAW converter of ACDSee Pro. With the improved denoise tool (please make it usable with the develop brush) the results aren't too bad, even with the limited dynamic range of my old DSLR.
                    Last edited by SCX; 06-12-2016, 02:10 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sorry, it's me again. I did some tests of my own the last days and compared Photomatix Essentials with HDR Efex. I used the Essentials version, because if I want to buy it, it is about 35 EUR. The Pro version would cost 85 EUR, which is too much for me. I don't test software, I can't afford

                      I came to the same conclusion as Glen. It is easier to get a natural result with Photomatix. It takes only seconds. But since I use HDR Efex much longer, I can achieve nearly similar results with HDR Efex AND it has much more tools for further changes. But I'm actually thinking about buying Photomatix Essentials, just because it is so much easier and faster to get the natural result

                      For natural looking images in HDR Efex try this (I hope, I got the terms correct):

                      TONE COMPRESSION
                      Tone Compression: -100 to 0
                      Method Strength: 0 to 25

                      HDR METHOD
                      Depth: Out
                      Detail: Realistic
                      Drama: Flat

                      The other sliders work quite similar to other programs. Usually I add lots of contrast, use the U-points and the Graduated Neutral Density filter in HDR Efex.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X