Plugins Verdict?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DaveV

Guest
Will more Plugins be availbale for Lightroom like Nik Software and Noise Ninja?

Or are Adobe creating similar functions within Lightroom that will do the same...

Hope so...
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
It's still early days Dawie - at a guess, I'd say they need to get the underlying code right first, before allowing truly integrated plug-ins. After all, I can't see the plug-in developers being very happy if every change the engineers made, broke their plug-ins!!! And having to be too careful not to break plug-ins could prevent great new features from being added. So it'll come... it's just going to be a question of time on that one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Victoria Bampton said:
It's still early days Dawie - at a guess, I'd say they need to get the underlying code right first, before allowing truly integrated plug-ins. After all, I can't see the plug-in developers being very happy if every change the engineers made, broke their plug-ins!!! And having to be too careful not to break plug-ins could prevent great new features from being added. So it'll come... it's just going to be a question of time on that one.
Click to expand...


I strongly prefer that Adobe puts all functionality in LR itself, with minimum (none is not possible) third party programs. I have tried (and licensed :-( Bibble Pro and DxO Optics Pro. They work that way and the programs are NOT stable and depent on the programmers of their "child-processes".

I prefer LR with maximum functionality and use third party programs when LR does a bad (ehhhr not so good, ehhhr little bit less) job. I prefer NX2 above CS3 for that because I use Nikon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eh... give me NIK Color EFEX Pro, NIK Viveza, and NIK Dfine as plugins inside of Lightroom and I'll be happy. Make them non-destructive and I'll do Adobe's laundry for a month.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One of the great benefits about open source development is the leverage of thousands of additional minds and programmers working on solutions for the software in areas it lacks a specific tool or process. The reason we have tools like noise nija, et.al is that someone wanted a noise removal process not available.

Adobe has already shown that it is interested in using some of these third party developments in their own program. For example, the new print sharpening is from nik (I believe) and is now incorporated into the beta 2.' version.

This would not be possible if we could not develop plugins. The adobe folks are so busy, they won't have time to address everything.

I hope we continue to allow the ability to have third parties write plug ins or export tools for Lightroom.

Just my opinion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually it's PhotoKit Sharpener by Pixel Genius, David.

Adobe are quite keen to have 3rd party involvement and to this end introduced an SDK with Version 1.3. Keeping an SDK active means writing the program in a way that it's easy to hook into. Of course doing this adds to the time needed to create and test code.
So the SDK is being expanded in stages. I'm sure with the release of V2.' we'll see added functionality in the SDK, but I suspect that full blown module style plugins are a way off yet. I could be wrong, but I've seen no one announcing such development. In fact PT Lens was recently released in an External Editor form for Lightroom, rather than a 'Plugin'.

The team isn't particularly large, so there is a finite amount of time to do things in.
We saw the basis of Local corrections in the beta, this took a lot of work to get to this rough stage, and I'm sure that it's been refined further. Still, it's time consuming work.
The day will come and sooner rather than later, but from rumblings on the net and other forums, I don't think we'll see what you want just yet. Of course, I'm get things as wrong as anyone, so this is all speculation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I hope they increase their team size very soon! Aperture is gaining a lot of ground, but having faith, I stick with the guys who brought us the first RAW workflow program that actually worked. Remember Aperture 1 ? No good... So I also think its just a matter of time, I just hope that time is not too long. I don't want to spend unnecessary money on plug-ins if LR2, will have the functionality and is only a few months ( hopefuly one... ! ) away.

I really need that noise ninja plugin!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't know NoiseNinja, but what I do with Noiseware is set the standalone as my second external editor. That's every bit as good as using Aperture's so-called plug ins.

John
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yep, you can do the same with NoiseNinja if you have the standalone version.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, but not a true plug-in

Victoria Bampton said:
Yep, you can do the same with NoiseNinja if you have the standalone version.
Click to expand...

I have Noise Ninja in both stand alone and plug in versions and much prefer the plug in functionality in photoshop. Setting it as the second editor in Lightroom effectively causes an export of an image into a full resolution 16bit tiff which then has to be saved as a seperate image. Frankly, this really defeats the purpose of non-destructive editing and use of the sidecar files. Moreover, because of the use of tiffs in addition to the actual cr2 file the size of any give session's images increases by orders of magnitude.

Adobe should either enable true non-destructive plugins as Aperture now has or it shoud incorporate a noise reduction technology on par w/Noise Ninja. Anything short of these two options is merely second best.

I love Noise Ninja. Its incorporation into Aperture really has me thinking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"I love Noise Ninja. Its incorporation into Aperture really has me thinking."
Maybe not enough though.

"Adobe should either enable true non-destructive plugins as Aperture now has"
No it hasn't. And Lightroom can do exactly the same via what it calls external editors.

These Aperture plug-ins are not really plug-ins, but you know what they say about repeating a lie often enough.... Strap-ons is a far more appropriate name for them (he says with a straight face).

John
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, John, gimme some facts

I know nothing of Aperture except that version 1.' apparently sucked and version 2.' is pretty good. Explain to me how the Noise Ninja plugin for Apperture is actually a strap-on. I am not being argumentative but really want to know whether this is infact the case. Saying that it is a "strap-on" is diametrically at odds with the following statement on DPReview:

"PictureCode has released its popular Noise Ninja noise-reduction application as a plug-in for Aperture. Previously available for Photoshop or as a stand-alone application, the Noise Ninja plug-in enables Aperture users to make adjustments to their photographs without having to leave Aperture’s workflow."

Now, I'm prepared to accept either version of this debate but only when presented with a rational argument.

Moreover, if it is infact a "strap-on" that doesn't actually differ from the method employed by LR to enable secondary editors, then What does this say of LR's method? Wouldn't this be a "strap-on" as well?

My point here is that enabling true plug-in technology for PhotoShop was a huge boon. Adobe should do the same for LR as well. Saying that Aperture's method is insufficient doesn't address the issue. It just really says that the "other guy" sucks as badly as we do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks rcannonp

The following quote from RG pretty much answered my question:

"When you're done in the plug-in and you apply the adjustments you've made, those adjustments are applied destructively as the plug-in window closes - the pixels in the photo are changed. While Aperture's plug-in architecture does provide the option to developers to create plug-ins that don't change the source photo's pixels, at least not initially, none of the plug-ins announced so far work this way. And since doing so would in most cases add a layer of complexity to how image editing plug-ins are integrated into the workflow by Aperture users, it's unlikely that we'll see many developers choose to build plug-ins that operate in this fashion."

It's not quite as slick as I had hoped for.

This still doesn't really address my principal concern w/LR: Noise reduction. I really like LR but just think Adobe should focus more energy on NR or maybe just license Noise Ninja and build it into LR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
thanks

I'll read it later today. Still and quite frankly, I just think LR needs to do a much better job at noise reduction. Something so basic shouldn't take a plug-in.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Moreover, if it is in fact a "strap-on" that doesn't actually differ from the method employed by LR to enable secondary editors, then What does this say of LR's method? Wouldn't this be a "strap-on" as well?"
Exactly, but it wouldn't pretend to be a plug in when in fact all it was doing was sending a TIF file to an external utility. "Without having to leave Aperture's workflow" is more misleading hype - little more in reality than saying the strap-on is in a modal dialog. When there's a real, non-destructive plug-in, that's the time to hype it up - for now it's simply misleading.

I agree with your last point that noise reduction needs to be better within Lightroom, though "something so basic" is a bit rough on them. The noise reduction is pretty good, and even today, with sensor noise continually reducing, it's enough for the vast majority of images by the vast majority of people - others can simply send files to dedicated noise reduction apps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
johnbeardy said:
The noise reduction is pretty good, and even today, with sensor noise continually reducing, it's enough for the vast majority of images by the vast majority of people - others can simply send files to dedicated noise reduction apps.
Click to expand...

When dealing w/color images, yes, it's usually just fine, though not great by any means. However, when converting to a black and white image, I generally have to apply NN prior to conversion. Otherwise, I the noise in BW will be intollerable under most circumstances. Comparing a 16bit tiff that has already been processed in NN and then converted to BW with one that was converted w/out NN, the result night and day. The NN image just looks so clean and bright whereas the nonNN image just looks too grainy for any reasonable use, let alone for a blow up.

Frankly, I withdraw my request for true plug-in support and replace it w/a request for implementation of NN directly in LR. That's what I really need.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
johnbeardy said:
I agree with your last point that noise reduction needs to be better within Lightroom, though "something so basic" is a bit rough on them. The noise reduction is pretty good, and even today, with sensor noise continually reducing, it's enough for the vast majority of images by the vast majority of people - others can simply send files to dedicated noise reduction apps.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about buying a Ricoh GX2'', I'd tried the GX1'' and although a great design with pretty good results the tedious RAW write times made it next to uselsss. Now the new camera solves the problems of the old one but then goes and spoils it by increasing pixel count. Now the new camera is as bad noisewise at 4''ISO as the older camera was at 16'' ISO and 8'' + 16'' are simply unusable even after lots of nise reduction treatment in ACR + PS, so noise is certainly not always getting better. Too many manufacturers are still gearing their kit towards marketing BS rather than actual usable results, which would result in better reviews and therefore more sales.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
not sure what this thread is all about really (too long for my short brain) but is the issue re: Nik Dfine not being in LR2 resolved? I have to use aperture right now just to reduce noise. I have a new Canon G1' which is very good in low light, and combined with Dfine, I can get really nice shots out of it...but i hate having to go into Aperture just to do that! thanks for any suggestions...
FH
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top