Alien Skin 2 vs 1?

[innerimager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

have and like Alien Skin a lot. Does version 2 offer enough improvement to be worth the $149 upgrade cost? Thanks...Peter

[arminw]

I have version 1 and 2, and now mostly use the upgrade. It just gives you a lot more control over the individual settings. Is it worth the upgrade price ???

I think it's a bit steep , but I still bought it and I am very happy with it .

 

Armin

[innerimager]

I forgot that I can, of course, check the demo of #2 out before buying it.That's what I'll do.

[Guest stnami]

Improvements yes, there is a difference especially in ease of use......................it works best with scanned film images

[innerimager]

Improvements yes, there is a difference especially in ease of use......................it works best with scanned film images

 

I played with the demo a bit and I agree, just on the improved interface and ease of use it's probably worth it. And, I also agree that it's a great tool for my scanned XP2 files! best...Peter

[Guest stnami]

It could be interesting to see how the application evolves as more and more non film users discover it. Most will know nothing about a so called film look and it will be just another plugin to them

 

 

..... as for the price I guess it depends on one's usage

[sjt1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just upgraded from exposure 1 to 2 and I have noticed a few things, some of which are in their advertising, some not.

 

1) the conversion process is faster - they claim this for dual core machines and in my experience it is true.

 

2) it automatically puts the name of the setting in the layer it creates (very useful for me)

 

3) the interface is better - it defaults to the full picture and is quicker too.

 

4) some of the presets with identical names in exposure 1 and 2 are different - for example kodachrome 200 in exposure 1 was very pink. In exposure 2 it is much less so. I have noticed this in B&W too - I think HP5 in exp 1 was less contrasty than HP5 in exp 2. As a result I have both exp1 and exp2 installed on the same machine so I can use all the settings - they just appear as different filters.

 

5) while not a difference it imports your saved settings into exp 2 when it installs.

 

6) infrared is much improved - they claim this and I think it is true. in exp1 it could return some truly horrid results, but on the same file exp 2 is nicer. Seeing this improvement made be get out the cash.

 

7) there are some new settings - polapan is quite nice IMO.

 

Re the poster that mentioned throwing colour channels away and using LAB lightness, I dont know much about LAB but I think colour channels certainly have an effect on the Exposure B&W conversion. For example Delta 100 blue skies are much lighter than HP5 skies, and you can adjust this in one of the tabs. So there is more to the conversion than just contrast.

 

Whether is is worth the extra I cannot say. It is indeed very expensive for what it is (especially if you upgrade), but the results I think are very good, and exp 2 gives a new degree of flexibility.

 

Hope this is useful.

 

Steve

[Guest stnami]

With LAB as with anything else one size does not fit all ............... but I do find RAW Developer's ability to use LAB at the initial stages of bnw conversion a bonus