On1 RAW 2022 Bad Points

RedRobin said:
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.
Click to expand...

There. does seem to be a fair amount/lot of interest in film photography among young people, and in prints. And yes there is definitely a fair amount of film photography being taught at colleges/university. But with my limited experience of his, it's more about it being a different approach (like oil vs watercolour painting) and "seeing" differently than about learning the basics.
 
myotis said:
There. does seem to be a fair amount/lot of interest in film photography among young people, and in prints. And yes there is definitely a fair amount of film photography being taught at colleges/university. But with my limited experience of his, it's more about it being a different approach (like oil vs watercolour painting) and "seeing" differently than about learning the basics.
Click to expand...
.... You'll find that many of the very famous painters started off by depicting their subjects very precisely and realistically before later developing their art into more experimental and unique style - Picasso is a good example. I forget who said this but one famous artist is well known for actually saying this and also my art teacher at school also believed in this.

It's always a good aim to find your own style to the extent that your work may be easily recognised but that is especially difficult in photography and nothing is truly original. Although of course you could argue that every image is original, but I'm referring to the style.

So, although the basic 'holy trinity' can be ignored I think an artist or creative photographer is missing a trick if they don't learn and understand the nature of their chosen media or tool so they can exploit it more fully.

In the context of what ON1 have been offering within their editing software for a long time, the bottom line is the talent of the image creator right through to final product.

THE PHOTOGRAPHER MAKES THE PHOTOGRAPH by Robin Procter, on Flickr

[I know I have accidentally mispelt Ansel's name but I have yet to revise my artwork < Job #432]
 
Retune said:
there is still a certain expectation that a photograph is a representation of reality.
Click to expand...

I think "representation" is the relevant word here, with expectations of reality driven by context and consequences.
 
RedRobin said:
So, although the basic 'holy trinity' can be ignored I think an artist or creative photographer is missing a trick if they don't learn and understand the nature of their chosen media or tool so they can exploit it more fully.

[I know I have accidentally mispelt Ansel's name but I have yet to revise my artwork < Job #432]
Click to expand...

In terms of formal education in photography, I would be very surprised if any the courses didn't include some basic teaching of the craft, including aperture, shutter speed and iso. But this can just as easily be taught with digital cameras, and from the few photography students I have had any dealings with, this wasn't the reason their courses used film cameras. And actually, learning iso for film is a bit misleading when it comes to iso in digital.

I often say their can be craft without art, but no art without craft. I know this is open to argument, but I think you need to develop your craft to a level where it's intuitive and not holding back your ability to create the art you are visualising.

I think this was part of my suggestion of photographers being lazy, where there seems to be a constant search for quick fixes, rather than accepting the real answer of working harder.

Having said that, photography means different things to different people, and my criticism of not working hard enough is only targeted at those aspiring to be "serious photographers", not that I really know what I mean by a serious photographer.

As an aside if you dig back into your messages you will find it was me who pointed out the Ansel misspelling when it was wrong in your posts tagline :)

As another Ansel aside, I use a "modified" version of his score and performance idea into thinking of Nature being responsible for the score but the photographer responsible for the arrangement and the performance. This fits in with my personal approach of acknowledging Nature's role in my photographs, but equally giving me a lot of freedom to "interpret" Nature's score in my own way.
 
myotis said:
their can be craft without art, but no art without craft
Click to expand...
Yes there can be craft without art, it's all around us. That doesn't diminish the craft - it is itself - unless it poses with pretensions, in which case it loses its dignity.

To say there's no art without craft is a sound basis regarding techniques, but actually accident is a vital ingredient of art - maybe that's what distinguishes it. An artist embraces accident & incorporates it (this is particularly true of painting).

myotis said:
a constant search for quick fixes, rather than accepting the real answer of working harder
Click to expand...
This goes on a lot! Pressing a button leads to thinking 'look, I did this!' - no you didn't, the button did. :)
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Yes there can be craft without art, it's all around us. That doesn't diminish the craft - it is itself - unless it poses with pretensions, in which case it loses its dignity.

To say there's no art without craft is a sound basis regarding techniques, but actually accident is a vital ingredient of art - maybe that's what distinguishes it. An artist embraces accident & incorporates it (this is particularly true of painting).
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean to diminish craft, and yes accident is a component of art, and the "art" is in recognising the value of the accident.

BUT, I would also argue that some "accidents" are set up and still rely on an understanding of craft, even if they were first triggered by an accident.

To use a photographic example, with something like ICM, there is a lot of luck involved, but equally, you need to think about the shapes and colours in the image, and how different camera movements might affect them. Over time something that started out as an accident becomes much more intentional as you learn how the "craft" part works, even if there is always a lucky/accidental component.
 
myotis said:
some "accidents" are set up
Click to expand...
Of course an artist may provoke / encourage accident - it's the living tension between accident & intent that makes the art. At the end (if there is one) it's all embodied in the work & that's what speaks to us. Jackson Pollock ...
 
myotis said:
I certainly didn't mean to diminish craft, and yes accident is a component of art, and the "art" is in recognising the value of the accident.

BUT, I would also argue that some "accidents" are set up and still rely on an understanding of craft, even if they were first triggered by an accident.

To use a photographic example, with something like ICM, there is a lot of luck involved, but equally, you need to think about the shapes and colours in the image, and how different camera movements might affect them. Over time something that started out as an accident becomes much more intentional as you learn how the "craft" part works, even if there is always a lucky/accidental component.
Click to expand...
.... With wildlife photography in particular there is usually a huge component (as well as good fieldcraft) of Lady Luck simply placing you in the right spot at the right time. And then it's up to your camera skills to capture an image for possibly enhancing later in post-processing. All an accident is is something unintended, rather like plants growing in unwanted places are called weeds.

However you decide to practice the black art of photography, the key is to shoot, shoot, shoot, and learn from all your mistakes, accidents, and intentions - It's all a source of great joy!

Personally I don't seek to experiment with ON1 but enjoy using it to enhance my photographic efforts in what I consider to be a realistic way. To that end, the latest 2022 version of ON1 is a leap forward in terms of both power and workflow efficiency. The rival editors should watch out!
 
RedRobin said:
.... With wildlife photography in particular there is usually a huge component (as well as good fieldcraft) of Lady Luck simply placing you in the right spot at the right time.
Click to expand...

Equally, wildlife is a good example of making your own luck by using that fieldcraft and understanding of animal ecology and behaviour to be in the right place at the right time, and being out there for long periods of time, at all times of day (and night).

A stoat running along the river bank in front of you while photographing dippers certainly has an element of luck, but it isn't luck that resulted in you being on the river bank in the first place, to take advantage of the stoat being there.
 
myotis said:
Equally, wildlife is a good example of making your own luck by using that fieldcraft and understanding of animal ecology and behaviour to be in the right place at the right time, and being out there for long periods of time, at all times of day (and night).

A stoat running along the river bank in front of you while photographing dippers certainly has an element of luck, but it isn't luck that resulted in you being on the river bank in the first place, to take advantage of the stoat being there.
Click to expand...
.... It can be partly as you say and you can encourage luck but it doesn't matter how much fieldcraft you know about a species behaviour and usual haunts - It is luck which gives you the opportunity to visit somewhere in the first place and it is luck if a species presents itself to you and your camera when you do visit. For example, it is luck which offers me a photo opportunity one day in my wildlife garden which I visit regularly of course but which does not offer me a photo opportunity an hour later or earlier or on another day - Same location/habitat and usually the same species, although occasionally with a lucky surprise.

Sometimes I get a gut feeling that an animal/bird/insect (especially a dragonfly) is there and I respond to that abstract feeling by going there, et voila! How do you explain that? - Actually I don't need to have an explanation, I just go with the flow. Their is no real science to it in my world.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... It can be partly as you say and you can encourage luck but it doesn't matter how much fieldcraft you know about a species behaviour and usual haunts - It is luck which gives you the opportunity to visit somewhere in the first place and it is luck if a species presents itself to you and your camera when you do visit.
Click to expand...
I think we are only arguing about degrees or proportion of luck to work and expertise. You actually make my point by saying you visit your wildlife garden regularly. This is you making the decision to set things up to maximise the chances of you being there to take advantage of a lucky event.

I just think that the harder you work at it, the more experience you get (the gut feeling part) and the greater your understanding of wildlife, the luckier you are likely to be, because this is likely to increase the probability of you being in the right place at the right time.
 
ON1 2022 is pretty much unusable for me. For some reason it suddenly stopped seeing my raw files as tier 1 which can be processed with ON1's raw engine, instead seeing them as tier 2 which is processed by the inbuilt raw processing engine on my computer. This has resulted in blown highlights in the program where no blown highlights exist! Cameras histogram is fine, previewing them on the computer with the inbuilt raw processor is fine and loading them into Affinity is fine. I've started a support ticket with them and they say its a known bug but right now I feel its a wasted £50. What's even more frustrating is its only started to happen to my files in the last two days, any images taken before that are fine!!
 
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...
.... As I posted earlier, I'm not one who favours replacing skies at all but I am one who likes to bring out and enhance the sky which my RAW file has captured - The true sky of the moment the photograph was taken.

So I can confirm that while still within ON1 2022 you can successfully use Luminar AI to intelligently reveal only the sky via a slider. Luminar AI is accessed as a plugin filter via Menu > Layers > Filter > Skylab > Luminar AI > Edit. You have to have previously chosen Luminar AI within ON1 2022 as a plugin and restarted ON1 to then see it for selection.

It works for me and can bring a picture to life when the sky initially looks rather flat and featureless. Here is an example shot very recently :

WHAT STEAM ENTHUSIAST DOESN&#x27;T LIKE SMOKE!? by Robin Procter, on Flickr
 
As someone quite succinctly put it earlier on "It's about authenticity".

For some reason some photographers distinguish between "photography" (in its authentic sense) and "art" (replacing a sky or removing a telegraph pole. )

Spending a few quid on a bundle of 331 skies at 90% off (to quote one example doing the rounds on FB) and a minute or so clicking a few buttons and moving a few sliders really doesn't qualify as "art".

I don't know what art is but I know what it isn't!

droj said:
no you didn't, the button did.
Click to expand...
No - depending on the button, the camera engineer or the software designer did........
 
jerry12953 said:
As someone quite succinctly put it earlier on "It's about authenticity".

For some reason some photographers distinguish between "photography" (in its authentic sense) and "art" (replacing a sky or removing a telegraph pole. )

Spending a few quid on a bundle of 331 skies at 90% off (to quote one example doing the rounds on FB) and a minute or so clicking a few buttons and moving a few sliders really doesn't qualify as "art".

I don't know what art is but I know what it isn't!
Click to expand...
.... Removing a telegraph pole or similar has historically been known as "retouching". Adding something is usually known as "manipulating" an image and that would include sky replacement. Neither is "Art" by any stretch of the imagination.

Replacing a sky is equivalent to so-called 'driving aids' in a modern car such as automatic braking - Such awful features numb our senses and encourage bad driving and, in photography, low standards. Each to their own I suppose and most of the editing software companies are currently pushing sky replacement (and AI) - It's just the latest flavour of the month like the horrendous overuse of HDR was.
 
Retune said:
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.
Click to expand...


Excellent post.
 
In case anyone here doesn't already know - ON1 have updated version 2022 to 16.1 and included is improvement to sky replacement management of trees.
 
But my sky's alright - it's the trees I want to replace ... ;)
 
Can someone recommend a good tutorial for on1 because unlike other software I'm not picking this up.
 
droj said:
I grew up with film - maybe this schooled me not to be trigger happy?
Click to expand...

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...

It always amazes me when film photographers say this...its simply not the case. In Leah Bendavid-Val's amazing history of the National Geographic and its photographs she talks about how
Photographers would come back with 600-800 rolls of film-about 20,000-30,000 frames
Click to expand...
and talks at length about shooting for the tray. The idea that film stopped one being trigger happy is a myth
 
Last edited:
Wandering star said:
Can someone recommend a good tutorial for on1 because unlike other software I'm not picking this up.
Click to expand...
.... ON1 have quite a few video tutorials but there also some good third-party ones which I could dig out for you.

Video Library - ON1

Learn how to use ON1 photo editing software applications. Quickly learn the essentials to get up and running with your ON1 app today.
www.on1.com www.on1.com

ON1 Photo RAW 2022 Quick Start Course - ON1

The ON1 Photo RAW 2022 Quick Start Course is perfect for anyone looking to get up and running with ON1 Photo RAW. We'll cover everything from importing...
www.on1.com www.on1.com
 
RedRobin said:
.... ON1 have quite a few video tutorials but there also some good third-party ones which I could dig out for you.

Video Library - ON1

Learn how to use ON1 photo editing software applications. Quickly learn the essentials to get up and running with your ON1 app today.
www.on1.com www.on1.com

ON1 Photo RAW 2022 Quick Start Course - ON1

The ON1 Photo RAW 2022 Quick Start Course is perfect for anyone looking to get up and running with ON1 Photo RAW. We'll cover everything from importing...
www.on1.com www.on1.com
Click to expand...
Your a diamond thank you
 
boyfalldown said:
It always amazes me when film photographers say this...its simply not the case.
The idea that film stopped one being trigger happy is a myth
Click to expand...
For f's sake, Hugh - I never had Nat Geo funding my film usage, it was funded out of my own shallow pocket. Stop generalising from the particular.
 
RedRobin said:
.... ON1 have quite a few video tutorials but there also some good third-party ones which I could dig out for you.
Click to expand...
@Wandering star Gary, I'm assuming that it's the latest ON1 2022 version you are using. In which case there aren't that many third-party tutorials yet - The existing videos are more about how each new feature works. So it's probably easier if you just Google and cherry pick what interests you.

For my part, although I have had ON1 for several years, I only used its Effects occasionally but now with the 2022 version I find it far more useful and have not needed to use Photoshop since ON1 2022 installation. Far more is integrated in the new version and NoNoise AI (better than Topaz DeNoise AI in my experience) is invaluable and suits my post-processing workflow much better.
 
Thought I'd give this a try again. I kind of liked the last version but after a couple of days all of my edits vanished and despite having all the .xml files I could not get my edits back. Found out that despite claims of no catalog, there is actually a database hidden in system files with no way to restore it unless you know exactly which files to replace or a full system restore. Uninstalled and refund requested.

I see that they have now included a backup/restore function so figured I'd give it a try on my new M1 Mac Mini. Two minutes into editing the first image, it crashed and I had to forced the app to quit.

Uninstalled.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't post-process much at all - it really is something I should do more of as I have lots of photo's that I could probably use if I put a bit of effort in. I've gone through several stages when I think about what I see.
Stage 1 - Denial - Get it right in camera or go home
Stage 2 - Actually I respect a few edits here or there as long as they enhance the photo rather than fundamentally change it
Stage 3 - who cares! Photography is Art - it can take any form and it it is up to the person viewing as to whether they like something or not. If a piece of software can increase someone's creative possibilities than Im all for it.

Im think that historically photography was all about capturing the moment. Now the sky is the limit, there are some amazing shots out there that have been 'created' and some equally good ones that have been taken, I enjoy looking at both, a picture is an expression of how someone wants something to look (real or fake)

So far Im enjoying ON1, I have owned it now for about 5 or 6 years, next step is to actually use it more :)
 
Last edited:
MrMackyB said:
Im think that historically photography was all about capturing the moment. Now the sky is the limit, there are some amazing shots out there that have been 'created' and some equally good ones that have been taken, I enjoy looking at both, a picture is an expression of how someone wants something to look (real or fake)
Click to expand...

Historically, many photographs were edited, manipulated and even skies replaced albeit a bit more effort was required.
 
MrMackyB said:
I personally don't post-process much at all - it really is something I should do more of as I have lots of photo's that I could probably use if I put a bit of effort in. I've gone through several stages when I think about what I see.
Stage 1 - Denial - Get it right in camera or go home
Stage 2 - Actually I respect a few edits here or there as long as they enhance the photo rather than fundamentally change it
Stage 3 - who cares! Photography is Art - it can take any form and it it is up to the person viewing as to whether they like something or not. If a piece of software can increase someone's creative possibilities than Im all for it.

Im think that historically photography was all about capturing the moment. Now the sky is the limit, there are some amazing shots out there that have been 'created' and some equally good ones that have been taken, I enjoy looking at both, a picture is an expression of how someone wants something to look (real or fake)

So far Im enjoying ON1, I have owned it now for about 5 or 6 years, next step is to actually use it more :)
Click to expand...

As said above, most of the better known photos from the film era would have been carefully hand printed, dodging, burning, sometimes masking or retouching. There's no such thing as photographic purity - JPGs straight from the camera are the result of design choices by the maker.

Unless you're creating 'digital art' then manipulation should be kept to enhance the image and bring out it's best aspects or to emphasise a meaning. A film negative or raw file, is the starting point of the picture, not the end.
 
MrMackyB said:
Stage 1 - Denial - Get it right in camera or go home
Stage 2 - Actually I respect a few edits here or there as long as they enhance the photo rather than fundamentally change it
Stage 3 - who cares! Photography is Art - it can take any form and it it is up to the person viewing as to whether they like something or not. If a piece of software can increase someone's creative possibilities than Im all for it.
Click to expand...
Some photos are for record purposes and personal expression doesn't get much of a look-in. But good camera work is still a worthwhile grounding.

Processing / editing is a way of excercising further control - it's just another but often vital step in realising the fullest photographic potential. So if you're serious about photography as personal expression, you'll be engaging with it. Note, though, that an algorithm is nothing but a monkey with a paintbrush. So tread firmly but with care.

Of course anyone's free to just take snaps, if that's what they want.

A good photograph may have artistic integrity, and hopefully some meaning.
 
As I have written earlier, I am not generally a big fan of replacement skies but it does depend very much on what the photographer wishes to achieve and what emotional responses they wish to evoke, both for the viewer but also for themselves.

So, I very much agree with both @MrMackyB Martin and @ancient_mariner Toni when they say :
MrMackyB said:
Stage 3 - who cares! Photography is Art - it can take any form and it it is up to the person viewing as to whether they like something or not. If a piece of software can increase someone's creative possibilities than Im all for it.
Click to expand...
ancient_mariner said:
Unless you're creating 'digital art' then manipulation should be kept to enhance the image and bring out it's best aspects or to emphasise a meaning. A film negative or raw file, is the starting point of the picture, not the end.
Click to expand...
Here is a rare example of me trying out a sky replacement in ON1 2022 last week :

CALLING DOCTOR FRANKENSTEIN TO AWAKE THE SLEEPING GIANTS! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Both these steam locos are awaiting restoration overhaul which inevitably involves expensive heavy engineering and the need to raise funds. The fund raising campaign for 92240 is called 'AWAKE THE GIANT'.

I have already taken it a stage further with the addition of bat silhouettes and the word 'HALLOWEEN' in black and orange Halloween style.

As said on Flickr, the original had a featureless pale white sky.

LATEST NEWS! - The fundraisers have asked my permission to use my photo in their campaign. So I am feeling pleased that I ventured to create this image just for fun.
 
Last edited:
I personally found the perfect brush tool to be very poor, on the whole, I want to like On1, I like the integrated noise tool but having been using LR for years I can't see me moving away anytime soon
 
Sharps said:
I personally found the perfect brush tool to be very poor, on the whole, I want to like On1, I like the integrated noise tool but having been using LR for years I can't see me moving away anytime soon
Click to expand...
.... Personally I never use the Brush tool in any editing software. Also, the only Layers are those which get created and introduced automatically by the software's AI, not by me. I realise I am not using ON1's full potential but I prefer to keep my image editing fairly simple and spend my time going out shooting instead.

I use Capture One rather than Lightroom in spite of Adobe offering it to me for free when it was first introduced - I had been pre-release testing InDesign for several years and encouraging them, doubtless along with others, to coordinate their apps more - Hence the Creative Suite was born. I took the whole Creative Suite as my reward instead (and still use it). Although ON1's latest version has resulted in me seldom using Photoshop.

I don't know if I'll move from Capture One in the future as I like it a lot but ON1 is definitely becoming more and more powerful in what it has to offer in image editing.
 
Last edited:
Well just downloaded the update and it seems to have resolved at least some of my issues. I now have the ON1 profiles in the develop mode, which means it now sees my raws as tier 1 and its not blowing the highlights anymore. But, the colour balance tool is still not showing Kelvin scale but rather a simple numeric one. Still at least its usable now.
 
My engagement with LR came to a halt at v6, however I viewed it as mature software - it worked fully as intended and I don't remember any bugs or crashes.

Lately I came to regard Photolab as mature too in a similar regard - clever stuff, & solid with it.

Capture One sometimes feels a bit unfinished in some detail or other, but the processing engine works pretty sweetly ...

I've never bothered with On1 or anything else.
 
droj said:
I find that very curious - I'm fairly impatient, & a brush is a very quick method of selecting / masking ...
Click to expand...
.... I don't use Masking either. But I'm not impatient - You can't be when you photograph wildlife.

If I can't enhance my image globally I consider I have failed and then I usually bin it. That's just me - We are all different in how we prefer to work.
 
droj said:
Capture One sometimes feels a bit unfinished in some detail or other, but the processing engine works pretty sweetly ...

I've never bothered with On1 or anything else.
Click to expand...
.... Technology never stands still and so no software is ever finished. Software development never stops - It's just that the developer decides to launch a latest version or update according to what features are up to the task by users and also according to market influences including rival releases. I did 4 years solid with no breaks for Adobe starting with CS1. I did get Christmas presents and perks though, in spite of the wretched UK tax people wanting money! :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top