MP3 Posted June 10, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Sean and fellow members, I've read your JFI BW profile reviews. As you speak highly of it, I'm interested to get it for my C1 as well. Just before I click the button, would you also shed me some light on the PROs and CONs when compared to the Alien Skin Exposure? All I understand is, JFI BW profiles can work smoothly with C1 (ah, I'm still with LE, could it work with C1 LE or must I upgrade to C1 PRO?), while Exposure need Photoshop CS to work with. As I'm quite used to C1 already. Can Exposure be run by itself without using Photoshop? Since Exposure does provides some nice color film mode, it is definitely a plus there. Cheers Matthew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 Hi MP3, Take a look here JFI vs Alien Skin Exposure Workflow. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cocker Posted June 10, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 10, 2007 Hi Sean and fellow members, I've read your JFI BW profile reviews. As you speak highly of it, I'm interested to get it for my C1 as well. Just before I click the button, would you also shed me some light on the PROs and CONs when compared to the Alien Skin Exposure? All I understand is, JFI BW profiles can work smoothly with C1 (ah, I'm still with LE, could it work with C1 LE or must I upgrade to C1 PRO?), while Exposure need Photoshop CS to work with. As I'm quite used to C1 already. Can Exposure be run by itself without using Photoshop? Since Exposure does provides some nice color film mode, it is definitely a plus there. Cheers Matthew Hi Matthew, I have and use both. JFI Profiles work in C1 LE with no difficulty. You just select them as you would any other profile. Exposure is a Photoshop plug in. I'm not aware of any way to use it as a standalone. If I was to choose between the two I would go for Exposure. It's much more versatile - it has the ability to fine tune the results and its integration into PS is a plus point for me as I can save the effect as a layer etc.. Best wishes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted June 10, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted June 10, 2007 Hi Keith, thank you for your prompt response. So I may need to brush up my Photoshop... Dear folks, your kind inputs are much anticipated and appreciated. Cheers Matthew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 10, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 10, 2007 They're for two different purposes, and I have both. First, I love the Alien Skin stuff. I can't think of a PS add-on that I use so much in a final print workflow; or an intermediated CM workflow. It's worth every penny, and it's not cheap as these things go. On the other hand--the JFI stuff has the advantage of working on RAW data. So when I'm doing a multiple RAW develop for a "HDR" BW shot from the M8, I use the JFI profiles then go to PS to composite. Once there, I can still do a ton of things with the Alien Skin plugin, including work grain, contrast and focus to make the BW look more the way I want. Even with a BW original. So they're both good. Given the JFI stuff costs what? IIRC $20 for the TriX profiles (don't use the other ones) I think they're well worth the $$. But Keith is right--if I had to choose one, it would be Exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Sp Posted June 10, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 10, 2007 hi i like the exposure grain filters (digital pictures need a grain) but they work really slowly with big pics...50 MB+... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted June 10, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 10, 2007 I use and like both, and JFI is so inexpensive it's silly not to go ahead and get them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted June 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Jamie, Philippe and GES, thank you for your kind sharings, great and to the point. So I'll get them both shortly. Jamie, special thanks again for your great profile work. They are absolutely great for folks here who don't want to mess with filters ! Cheers Matthew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted June 11, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 11, 2007 I know this sounds crazy but I use both at the same time. I convert my DNGs with the JFI TriX profile and then add Exposure on top of this for grain etc. It works for me, and I love the results, although sometimes you have to lift the shadows back up a little bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 11, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 11, 2007 I know this sounds crazy but I use both at the same time. I convert my DNGs with the JFI TriX profile and then add Exposure on top of this for grain etc. It works for me, and I love the results, although sometimes you have to lift the shadows back up a little bit. That doesn't sound crazy to me at all. I don't use Alien Skin but I hear great things about it. My life is complicated enough already so I personally go straight to B&W using the JFI profiles in C1 (for much of my work) and that's all I need. I'm sure Alien allows one to do many things that a mere profile never could. I also use the color filters in the JFI profiles just like I used color filter on lenses (although, again, lots of software can do that). I do find that I like several of the JFI recipes such as XP2, Tri-X, T-Max 400 etc. David Adamson, who's a master printer, is a big fan of Alien Skin - that's worth noting. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 11, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 11, 2007 I use both Adobe Camera Raw and Alien skin. I first make the basic BW conversion in ACR in the (questionable) belief that this conversion is best done on the raw data. So, this involves the characteristic curve (an S curve with an abrupt, fairly long, flat toe and a long, gradually curved shoulder, sort of Tri-X like); and the chromatic curve with which I adjust the RGB sensitivity to (respectively) something like a -20, +10, +15, which is also Tri-X like. In addition the ACR "fill" and "clarity" controls (in the new, really good 4.1) are indispensable to me. For those who have not tried 4.1, these two controls alone are worth the price. And the sharpening controls are unmatched by anything (though I tend to sharpen in PS in a separate layer because I can see what I'm doing more easily). In PS I use "Smart Sharpen" exclusively The Alien Skin I use if I want to add grain, which I do very subtly for many prints. A.S. could be used for the characteristic and chromatic conversion curves (and it's quite good at that), but this would mean using the ACR raw converion controls (exposure, recovery, brightness, fill and clarity) on a color image, which I cannot do effectively. If you haven't seen what Adobe has done in CR 4.1, look at the summary on photoshopnews.com. I think this is the most important piece of software for digital photography I can remember. There/they're/their (LOL) is much to be learned from this program whether you decide to use it or not. I believe that Lightroom will also be updated with the 4.1 controls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 11, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 11, 2007 I am using Tri-X for a Tri-X look and it works................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 11, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 11, 2007 I have been using Tri-X for a Tri-X look for forty years, and still am, and it doesn't work as well or as consistently as the M8 . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Sp Posted June 14, 2007 Share #13 Posted June 14, 2007 hi Alienskin Exposure is really natural-my favour!; i tested also PR grain filter (Powerretouche) -- but it it's like a "grainfog" over the picture (it's little be faster then AS Exposure) try also (digitalfilmtools 55mm) -- really cool filters!! best regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted June 14, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 14, 2007 Walt, being the owner of an M6 and M8, and shooting more or less exclusively Tri-X with the M6, I am curious what you mean. I don't shoot enough film, or work with it enough, to controvert your statement, but I am curious, because as much as I enjoy the M8, I don't consider it a replacement for the M6, but an extension. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 15, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 15, 2007 Carsten, What I meant is that, for film, variations in gelatin, variations in processing, variations in lighting and more limited exposure latitude allow me to get more consistent results with the M8, whatever "look" I want. The M8 is something like a film camera with several films loaded and exposed simultaneously (Tri-X and XP-2 come to mind) which then allows one to pick and choose during printing. So, if the irregularities and uncontrollability of shooting Tri-X are "Tri-X like" then Tri-X can't be beat. If the objective is to have a certain image style (tonal scale, noise, etc.) then the M8 is much more reliable and offers a much wider range of possibilities. I mentioned in a recent post that I had two very, very experienced photographers (both with technical expertise way beyond mine) here one day when I happened to have ten 13 x 19 workprints that I was working up for final prints. One was a Tri-X scan from the M2, the other nine from the M8. (The Tri-X shot had been done with the 35/2.0 ASPH, the M8's with the 28/2.0, which I thought would be the giveaway.) After much deliberation (like 15 minutes) each picked "the Tri-X print" (a different one for each), and both were wrong. Relatively simple adjustment of chromatic response, tonal curves and "grain" (from A.S. Exposure) allow the M8 to look anyway you want it to look. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted March 15, 2011 Share #16 Posted March 15, 2011 They're for two different purposes, and I have both. First, I love the Alien Skin stuff. I can't think of a PS add-on that I use so much in a final print workflow; or an intermediated CM workflow. It's worth every penny, and it's not cheap as these things go. On the other hand--the JFI stuff has the advantage of working on RAW data. So when I'm doing a multiple RAW develop for a "HDR" BW shot from the M8, I use the JFI profiles then go to PS to composite. Once there, I can still do a ton of things with the Alien Skin plugin, including work grain, contrast and focus to make the BW look more the way I want. Even with a BW original. So they're both good. Given the JFI stuff costs what? IIRC $20 for the TriX profiles (don't use the other ones) I think they're well worth the $$. But Keith is right--if I had to choose one, it would be Exposure. Jamie, Is Exposure 2 doing things Color Efex Pro don't do (apart mimicking film) ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 21, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 21, 2011 Jamie,Is Exposure 2 doing things Color Efex Pro don't do (apart mimicking film) ? Hi Johan, No, I don't think so from an IQ perspective. I've got Alien Skin Exposure 3 now, though, because I find it more amenable to automating some things. I get the feeling that the Nik stuff is more powerful, but I won't be upgrading that anytime soon... I just find myself using Exposure more often than not. I know that's not really helpful, but I've been concentrating on printing these days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.