On1 RAW 2022 Bad Points

mstphoto

mstphoto

Messages
4,727
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
All-in-All On1 Photo RAW 022 is quite good - apart from 2 things that I have found so far.

1. It no longer works as a Plug-In with Adobe CC (Unless you go for the Ultimate Upgrade version at almost double the price)
I have found a work around to using it as a Plug-In with Lightroom but not Photoshop which is annoying!!

2. The Sky Replacement works fine with trees and mountains but not if there are buildings in the image :thinking:

I do like the integration with On1 NoNoise from within the program.
 
droj said:
I'm a bit puzzled by this - if the sky is going to need replacing, why take the photograph?
Click to expand...
What if it was a one off visit to a particular area that you are unlikely to visit again?
Perhaps you want to make the image more dramatic?
Artistic Licence I suppose :LOL:
Sometimes its nice to be able to add clouds etc to a bland blue sky.
The sky is the limit, as they say, when it comes to post processing.
The old masters when painting landscapes probably added clouds etc that were never there in the first place ;)
 
mstphoto said:
What if it was a one off visit to a particular area that you are unlikely to visit again?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take the photo! I don't make images compulsively, I just take a photo when I see one. I grew up with film - maybe this schooled me not to be trigger happy?
 
All photography is artifice & always has been! But the way things are headed, it starts to look as if artificial intelligence (I nearly said AI but that means something different to we country folk!) is going to render humans redundant.

Even now, you can slump on the sofa & tell Alexa or 'somebody' equally fictional to dim the room lighting - as if you can't get off your arse!

Thus we are likely to gradually lose our faculties and the point of being alive will be divorced from us. Trouble is, I actually relish being human, & I don't want to have it stolen from me by cyborgs creeping in round the back.
 
droj said:
I'm a bit puzzled by this - if the sky is going to need replacing, why take the photograph? Are we losing touch with the ground?
Click to expand...

I recall amateur photographer running a series showing how darkroom experts would mask and replace skies and other things.

I'd suggest it's the ground we're in touch with, but not the air so much. ;)
 
To a lot of photographers, photography is an art, and art as well as photography is subjective, one man's meat is another man's poison as they say, replacing the sky and other things, has been going on since the film days, I don't have a problem with it, if your objective is being artistic I think pretty much anything goes, for instance look at photographers like Joel Grimes, who make a living from composite images, I think his work is great, although I'm sure others will hate it. If you have the tools in software to make your images more artistic, if that's what floats your boat, why not.
 
TG. said:
If you have the tools in software to make your images more artistic, if that's what floats your boat, why not.
Click to expand...
The problem there is that invoking some algorithm by pressing a button doesn't make your images more artistic - art can't be faked on the cheap. Those painting by numbers kits never produced art. It's all just pointless dabbling & a waste of time. Art & whimsy aren't synonymous.
 
droj said:
The problem there is that invoking some algorithm by pressing a button doesn't make your images more artistic - art can't be faked on the cheap. Those painting by numbers kits never produced art. It's all just pointless dabbling & a waste of time. Art & whimsy aren't synonymous.
Click to expand...

This makes me want to ask the question then, if replacing a sky required several hours of determined effort and practiced skill, would it therefore be acceptable?

Your final sentence is also interesting, because I'd have said that in some instances they were completely so.

whimsy
wĭm′zē, hwĭm′-
noun
An unusual, unexpected, or fanciful idea; a whim.
Quaint, fanciful, or playful humor.
A whim; a freak; a capricious notion
 
ancient_mariner said:
if replacing a sky required several hours of determined effort and practiced skill, would it therefore be acceptable?
Click to expand...
Acceptable to whom? But it beats me why anyone would want to replace a sky anyway, so in let's say 99% of cases, no.

I suppose that art may employ whimsy, but that doesn't make any display of whimsy art. Just as art employs techniques, without being automatically created by the pursuance of those techniques.
 
droj said:
Acceptable to whom? But it beats me why anyone would want to replace a sky anyway, so in let's say 99% of cases, no.

I suppose that art may employ whimsy, but that doesn't make any display of whimsy art. Just as art employs techniques, without being automatically created by the pursuance of those techniques.
Click to expand...

Acceptable to you. I think most commenters here don't see the effort involved as having a significance, but you seemed to see doing it with software as 'on the cheap'.

And I think we'd all agree that whimsy isn't art alone, but for some artists it's almost a trademark or the thing that makes their piece art.

I assume this is all about authenticity. The acceptable price of entry being that the scene is reproduced as it was. But we already know this is not possible with a photograph (let alone painting, where sky replacement is the only possible option). For me personally, if there is no suggestion that the sky has been replaced then I'm happy with that. If the sky doesn't fit the rest of the image (even if it has not been replaced) then I tend to reject that photo.
 
It may be about authenticity but perhaps not in the way you meant it. Might I say authenticity of intent (purpose), which is a deeper thing & harder to quantify?

It often seems to me that the world's over-swamped by entertainment - we need a bit of that, but at its worst it's only pointless light relief. Anything in the cultural sector has characteristics that lie somewhere on a spectrum, and I keep coming back to the marker of meaning as being a crucial one.

Much entertainment doesn't mean very much, no matter how 'professionally' produced it is - and it can serve as a distraction from social reality, which isn't necessarily healthy when purveyed in such quantity. I often feel that most telly, for instance, is in effect a kind of drug to keep us all anaesthetised.

So ok - replace that sky (!). But what's the point?
 
I ought to add that the purveyors of sky-replacement 'therapy' are far from altruistic - they're not interested in making a better world for anyone - they just want your money.
 
droj said:
often feel that most telly, for instance, is in effect a kind of drug to keep us all anaesthetised.
Click to expand...

Now that I would agree - and to make sure everyone knows what they must tolerate and what they must abhor - in the name of diversity and inclusion, of course. ;)

But to your original point, Adobe don't make lightroom (without sky-change capability) any more altruistically than On1 or Affinity make their software. These are just a product, although having been involved with On1 for a while, I'd say they are photographers committed to the product, more than a malign megacorp.


droj said:
ok - replace that sky (!). But what's the point?
Click to expand...

To make the picture look the way you 'saw' it. Sure, many will just roll the turd in glitter, but that doesn't make the glitter manufacturer bad. It's just a tool. For me, the obvious natural end to this thinking is that it shouldn't be possible to adjust brightness in post, because the authentic photographer would have made their choices at the time and got it right in camera (like we did shooting slides). For many of us, this is no less authentic than recovering shadows or popping a yellow filter (real or virtual) on for a mono shot.

:)
 
Much is commercial, we all must trade ... but you seem to be ignoring my point about meaning, Toni ...?
 
droj said:
Much is commercial, we all must trade ... but you seem to be ignoring my point about meaning, Toni ...?
Click to expand...
I'm reading and writing on a phone - it's awkward to answer comprehensively through the letterbox. :p

Few images I see appear to have any intentional meaning that I can intuit from them, and even those that do, I don't see as having a value from being shot on a single occasion or being composites. There is a sense of being slightly torn, of wanting the most amazing landscapes to have been shot as a single image: I do get that, and would be unhappy if someone claimed that, yet had in fact made a composite. But at the same time, if they DO present the image as not a single shot then I'm completely fine with that too.
 
But without meaning, all is just decor, isn't it ...?
 
droj said:
But without meaning, all is just decor, isn't it ...?
Click to expand...

There's the practical bench scientist in me that say it's ALL decor, although some like to place additional value on it. Not trying to be difficult, but *for me* the transcendency of an image won't be affected by authenticity in the way we have been discussing. I appreciate that may not be true for you.

Possibly the images that have struck me the most powerfully are Salgado's pictures of Brazilian mine workers. These look anything but natural, appearing highly manipulated to me, yet they lose nothing because of that. At an earlier time I enjoyed the work of Man Ray, which was often contrived and whimsical with experimental use of solarisation, generation of Rayograms etc.

And finally, I'm deeply skeptical of things claiming to be more than decor, because then large price tags get attached.

So I probably do view it all as decor, but occasionally get pleasantly surprised. I've sold and gifted the odd image, and am always happy when someone wants to put my work on their wall.
 
mstphoto said:
I grew up with film as well.
It always amazes me when I read about photographers that go out and take hundreds if not thousands of images in a day.
Click to expand...
..... Then go out for a whole day shooting (with a camera not a gun!) wildlife. And especially if you do bursts of shots or use in-camera features such as focus stacking or pro-capture.
 
ancient_mariner said:
To make the picture look the way you 'saw' it. Sure, many will just roll the turd in glitter, but that doesn't make the glitter manufacturer bad. It's just a tool. For me, the obvious natural end to this thinking is that it shouldn't be possible to adjust brightness in post, because the authentic photographer would have made their choices at the time and got it right in camera (like we did shooting slides). For many of us, this is no less authentic than recovering shadows or popping a yellow filter (real or virtual) on for a mono shot.
Click to expand...
.... Making the picture to look the way you saw it is part of expressing yourself through a picture. The photographic image is just the chosen medium.

As my forum signature quotation says below : "The camera takes the photo, but the photographer makes the photo".

However, I personally draw the line at replacing skies and prefer to enhance, if the RAW sensor has captured enough data, what I managed with my camera. Also, sky substitutions so very rarely look natural. Those who overcook HDR must be taking strong hallucinogenics such as LSD!

The bottom line is though that each of us can decide for ourselves what we like best and how we want to express ourselves - There is no right or wrong but merely individual preferences. Of course some photographers only want to use a camera to record in a cold dispassionate kind of way.

P.S. - If you do roll the turd in glitter, don't forget to wash your hands afterwards ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TG.
mstphoto said:
All-in-All On1 Photo RAW 022 is quite good - apart from 2 things that I have found so far.

1. It no longer works as a Plug-In with Adobe CC (Unless you go for the Ultimate Upgrade version at almost double the price)
I have found a work around to using it as a Plug-In with Lightroom but not Photoshop which is annoying!!

2. The Sky Replacement works fine with trees and mountains but not if there are buildings in the image :thinking:

I do like the integration with On1 NoNoise from within the program.
Click to expand...
.... I very much agree with your two points. However :

1. I have stayed with Adobe Photoshop CS6 and I do all my RAW conversions and local adjustments in CaptureOne before editing in ON1. The drop-down ON1 plug-in Filter (and other third-party filters) in CS6 is/was very convenient and time saving in my workflow. But I am now finding in my 14-day trial version that I can host more plug-ins in ON1 2022 rather than in Photoshop and, like you, I prefer applying NoNoise AI (early) within ON1 before saving back to CaptureOne.

2. I simply have no interest in going as far as sky replacements, as discussed above. I don't even use layers or masking.

Overall I like the latest ON1 2022 and prefer it to the 2021 and earlier versions. ON1 2022 works seamlessly as a 'plug-in' in CaptureOne. But will I ever change from doing my basecamp edits in CaptureOne21 to ON1 2022? Not in the forseeable future but never say never.

What I hate about ON1 is their incessant marketing emails but CaptureOne is getting a bit like that too at times.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
There's the practical bench scientist in me that say it's ALL decor
Click to expand...
You're sounding a bit left-brained Toni, if you'll forgive the term - but imaging belongs more to the right-brained world. We can recognise truth in our hearts that our rational minds can't explain, yet we can still know it as truth. This isn't fantasy - it happens, is beyond whimsy, and isn't arbitrary.

Of course photographic images are produced by the use of processes - that's not bad in itself, it's a means that we all use. But are these processes used to create something that communicates meaning, or as a toy to play with in its own right regardless of result? At issue is the relationship and interaction between the creator and those processes, and the image is the end result of that live interaction.

The issue isn't about a notion of faithfulness to an original scene - only that scene can be itself, and an image is an image, which is something else. But the image can be assesssed emotionally / intuitively - which you're doing with the Salgados, and they are far from being mere decor.

Given that many images are primarily of 'things' , as in "Ah, yes, that's a whotsit, here's the tick for that", which I believe was the only way my long-late father could see a picture - and this is a valid department of imaging. But there's a range of imaging purposes that extend beyond 'things'.

Some images that I enjoy extend into abstraction. The odd thing is that we might recognise one abstract painting or photograph as meaningful, and another as vapid. How is the difference divined? You have to trust your gut.

And Robin, of course you're allowed to be a machine gun when you're out ... ;-) But I think for brevity here we're on about static scenes ...
 
Last edited:
droj said:
So ok - replace that sky (!). But what's the point?
Click to expand...

What if you do it the other way round and use the tool to help replace the foreground. ie intentionally photograph meaningful skies, maybe thinking equivalence here, and then match, or specifically take, photographs of foregrounds that complement those skies. I don't think it needs to be a mindless exercise of just adding a "pretty" sky, but rather something that can extend the creative toolbox.

As an aside, I understand, the sky replacement tools are also very good for burning in an existing sky as you can use them to create an extremely high quality mask for the sky. None of my software has a sky replacement feature, so I am just going on the videos I've watched.
 
myotis said:
maybe thinking equivalence here
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Stieglitz / Minor White?

myotis said:
As an aside, I understand, the sky replacement tools are also very good for burning in an existing sky as you can use them to create an extremely high quality mask for the sky.
Click to expand...
Interesting ...

Ok, let's characterise sky replacement as a technique (amongst all the others). One objection (along with many other digital tricks) could be that it makes things ridiculously easy and so encourages its misuse. But it can hardly be outlawed!

I've just been trying to say that any technique, digital or analogue, should never be an end in itself / used for its own sake. To me a communicable result is what counts, and one that in some way embodies emotional verity.
 
droj said:
I've just been trying to say that any technique, digital or analogue, should never be an end in itself / used for its own sake. To me a communicable result is what counts, and one that in some way embodies emotional verity.
Click to expand...
.... Exactly my opinion too.

The best images / photos are evocative and initiate some kind of emotion whether it be abstract and difficult to explain or it be able to be analysed. Although personally I don't get excited reading intellectual analysis of photographs and art.
 
RedRobin said:
I don't get excited reading intellectual analysis of photographs and art.
Click to expand...
But it's good to talk about things, otherwise we're just left with the thumbs up / thumbs down approach that explains nothing ...

And I think that though we each may be born with a varying aptitude for 'seeing', that 'seeing' can be subject to education ...
 
Last edited:
Being already familiar with using ON1 2021 for standalone NoNoise AI and Effects, I have now taken advantage of the discount coupon and downloaded the upgrade to ON1 2022 for 61 squid but I haven't bothered to download the free package of Sky Replacements as I don't do that kind of edit. I did it once to test if anyone noticed and they didn't! Or at least they didn't say so.

So far I think this is the first version of ON1 which gives any serious competition to the other RAW editors but I still favour CaptureOne for RAW conversions and local adjustments.
 
droj said:
But it's good to talk about things, otherwise we're just left with the thumbs up / thumbs down approach that explains nothing ...

And I think that though we each may be born with a varying aptitude for 'seeing', that 'seeing' can be subject to education ...
Click to expand...
.... I agree. I'm only saying that discussions which are highly intellectual usually go over my head. This happens more with paintings, especially abstract style, than with photographs.
 
RedRobin said:
This happens more with paintings, especially abstract style
Click to expand...
But be cheered by the fact that much supposedly clever talk in the art world is a load of posturing guff that would fit well into pseuds' corner, and left touch with the ground a long way back :)
 
SFTPhotography said:
Given the subscription model by Adobe is much maligned on here - I expect ON1 to continue to do well and gather more users. I really liked the trial of the 2021 software - I just preferred DXO. I wish ON1 well though.
Click to expand...
.... Adobe's subscription model has been maligned / criticised globally, not just here in the tiny corner of the world which TP occupies. However, if you are a business user making money from using Adobe software, then perhaps it doesn't matter so much.

ON1 and others also offer subscriptions but as an option which a user is free to choose or not. Adobe users got pee'd off when they thought they weren't being given options.

My daughter uses the subscription version of Photoshop in her business Sky Siouki but understandably refuses to store her work in a cloud.

https://skysiouki.com

I prefer CaptureOne for my RAW conversions and local adjustments but ON1 is an excellent tool for finishing it all off and has got better and better with each new version.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I've just been trying to say that any technique, digital or analogue, should never be an end in itself / used for its own sake. To me a communicable result is what counts, and one that in some way embodies emotional verity.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about Stieglitz, but it doesn't matter, as I was only using it as an argument that new tools can open up new opportunities for expressive work.

I’m not convinced that a sky replacement tool (or other tricks) does make things ridiculously easy, because it doesn't help with the difficult bits, making it look like the sky "belongs" to the image, making sure it "adds" something worthwhile to the image, and that the image has something worth saying in the first place.

I'm not sure I'm overly concerned about people playing with technology for it's own sake, people have lots of different hobbies. If someone presents a photograph that is obviously just using a technique for the sake of using the technique then it can be judged accordingly.

I'm not as complacent about the above as it may sound, as I do think there is a problem for people aspiring to be "serious" photographers being lulled into thinking photography is easy, just because the technology makes it easy to record an image. I think it possibly encourages a laziness both in developing their craft and their art.
 
myotis said:
I'm not sure I'm overly concerned about people playing with technology for it's own sake, people have lots of different hobbies. If someone presents a photograph that is obviously just using a technique for the sake of using the technique then it can be judged accordingly.

I'm not as complacent about the above as it may sound, as I do think there is a problem for people aspiring to be "serious" photographers being lulled into thinking photography is easy, just because the technology makes it easy to record an image. I think it possibly encourages a laziness both in developing their craft and their art.
Click to expand...
.... I agree. And the widespread use of typical Instagram filters and mobile phone cameras GENERALLY tend to do the same.

I'm told that current photography courses at uni etc set their students projects using old school film cameras so they learn to understand the basic 'holy trinity' of aperture+shutter+ISO. That's a very good thing in my opinion.

Some photographers apply some horrible over uses of ON1's feature set - Again in my opinion. But, hey, haven't most of us done the over-sharpening thing and since learnt from our mistakes?
 
Of course any tool can be used by an artist. Probably there are digital Man Rays out there right now, transforming their images in all sorts of interesting ways, with artistic intent. And many of us will recall the darkroom alchemy of exotic developers, dodging and burning, toning and bleaching, that can transform a film image. But for me, a technique like sky replacement, or cloning out a major picture element, very often crosses a line into a sort of queasy hinterland between photography and digital art. All very well if we do this for our own amusement, or to produce something that is explicitly labelled as (or can reasonably be assumed to be) a collage or manipulated image. But all too often, images of this kind are presented to the world, online or otherwise, without explanation. They may be pictures of a recognisable place, but crowned by a dramatic sunset that never graced that location. They might be idealised landscapes, minus the inconvenient pylons, litter bins and bus shelter that are permanent fixtures of the real place. And then I think we are doing our viewers a disservice if we offer no clue that we have taken major liberties with the scene in front of us. Because even in an age of deepfakes and Instagram filters, there is still a certain expectation that a photograph is a representation of reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top