Google Nik Collection is Now Free

[d]

...

I've written up details of how I use many of the plugins. There are also reviews of earlier versions - useful fo r a bit more info if you find something particularly useful
...

Thanks Keith - I'll check these out!

I've contemplated purchasing Silver Efex on a number of occasions over past years but never went through with it - nice to have it to play with now.

Cheers,
d.

 

[GuyF]

I've contemplated purchasing Silver Efex on a number of occasions over past years but never went through with it - nice to have it to play with now.

Cheers,
d.

Used sensibly, Silver Efex is wonderful. I'm sure you'll like it.

 

[YuengLinger]

I've contemplated purchasing Silver Efex on a number of occasions over past years but never went through with it - nice to have it to play with now.

Cheers,
d.

Used sensibly, Silver Efex is wonderful. I'm sure you'll like it.

+1

 

[mustafa]

It was a shame when Google dropped SnapSeed for the desktop, and it didn't get the enhancements that the mobile version got.

I'm still using the original version, as it's usually all I need for pictures heading for FB.

 

[nvettese]

Before HDR eFex 2 came out, I purchased the original from New Egg or some site for like $30. Then a year or so later Google purchased them, and because I had the HDR software, I was afforded the entire at no cost. I could not be happier with my purchase, or this news. I just hope that Google remains committed to this software for the photographers in all of us.

 

[MickDK]

https://hbr.org/2012/07/i-wont-hire-people-who-use-poo/

Man, here you are all up in arms over diction and no one's talking about how people aren't hiring Nikon shooters.

:-X

Good read on grammar. One that amuses me is "their" in place of "they're", pretty common on CR. This CR babble is just good for a laugh, not to be taken seriously!

Jack

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/marktwain.cfm

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x"— bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez —tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivili.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

 

[JonAustin]

Isn't it hilarious to read submissions from the grammar-police? They clearly forget that we no longer speaketh like wot we did back in Shakespeare's day. Language evolves whether pedants like it or not. The beauty of English is that it can be twisted like a Rubik's cube and yet the writer's intentions are still understood.

Don't get me started on text-speak or that bastard child, "American english". Lol.

(Sigh.) Well, you can call me "the grammar-police," and point out the obvious evolution of language or make other glaringly self-evident observations, if you like. I don't mind, really. Only trying to help. But if you refuse to recognize the importance of sounding competent in the basics of the language, don't come whining to me if you miss out on that job (or other) opportunity. I just don't understand people who insist on wallowing in ignorance or shun the opportunity to better themselves.

 

[GuyF]

...But if you refuse to recognize the importance of sounding competent in the basics of the language, don't come whining to me if you miss out on that job (or other) opportunity.

Rather than a wholesale refusal to agree the usefulness of correct English, I think there's a big difference between posting a comment on a forum (especially one aimed at photography rather than the minutiae of language) and applying for a job. If you intend working as a journalist, linguist or editor of the OED then verbal skills are high on the agenda. On the other hand, I can't think of any architect, electrical engineer or chemist I've met who knew what it means to conjugate a verb. I imagine you would view them all as dunces. I'll be sure to let them know their careers will now flounder.

Just for completeness and to bring an end to this wordy tomfoolery, can you let me know your definition of the word "arrogance"?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Isn't it hilarious to read submissions from the grammar-police? They clearly forget that we no longer speaketh like wot we did back in Shakespeare's day. Language evolves whether pedants like it or not. The beauty of English is that it can be twisted like a Rubik's cube and yet the writer's intentions are still understood.

Don't get me started on text-speak or that bastard child, "American english". Lol.

(Sigh.) Well, you can call me "the grammar-police," and point out the obvious evolution of language or make other glaringly self-evident observations, if you like. I don't mind, really. Only trying to help. But if you refuse to recognize the importance of sounding competent in the basics of the language, don't come whining to me if you miss out on that job (or other) opportunity. I just don't understand people who insist on wallowing in ignorance or shun the opportunity to better themselves.

+1

 

[Jack Douglas]

This has been good as my first laugh of the morning! I hope Neuro (and others too) never abandons CR.

However, I am now more interested in learning about photography than grammar at my age.

Having said that, there are standards that any young person should aim for or they will pay the price. Also we obviously have to be able to communicate effectively, including CR. I think we do just fine.

NIK is going to be useful to me for sure.

Jack

 

[neuroanatomist]

Since we're bastartizing the language, how come no one has wondered if 'Nik' is a language-evolved shortening of Nikon, and if so, does the software work well or even at all on Canon images?

 

[FramerMCB]

Re: the good and maybe not so good

Superb software - I've written detailed reviews of the parts, and use many of them regularly.

A key part of my print workflow often uses sharpener3
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/plugins/sharpening_nik3.html

However...
The software has pretty much stagnated since acquisition. Giving it away doesn't seem to suggest we're seeing anything new on the way (unless it's part of Google's secret plan to take down Adobe ;-) )

What also bothers me somewhat is the feeling that it's kick in the face for lots of smaller photography software developers.

True. Very true. We've seen this happen in other industries too. A small company with a great product gets bought by a larger company. To either kill the technology/idea or to assimilate/incorporate it into their company portfolio or products. I'm afraid that this might hurt other companies ability to sell similar products, as well as Google's own desire to support/further develop a free product. The only way they continue supporting and/or upgrading Nik plug-ins, would be because they are integral parts of some other Google offering that is a paid service or subscription-like service (similar to Adobe's newer business model). And I think there will be a lot of upset Nik customers who purchased it in 2015 who are pissed as hell at Google. For them, this is an unfortunate turn-of-events. For those of us who can now get this suite for free...great! But I wonder of the long-term viability of the Nik suite now. And I have heard very good things about most of these plug-ins.
A final thought, as someone else has also mentioned, is what kind of negative impact this may have on Topaz products, which are very good products too.

 

[curby]

Re: the good and maybe not so good

The software has pretty much stagnated since acquisition.

A final thought, as someone else has also mentioned, is what kind of negative impact this may have on Topaz products, which are very good products too.

Professionals will pay for high end tools. Abandonware is much less useful to professionals regardless of cost. What happens to Topaz is in their hands, not the hands of peddlers of obsolete tools. (I'm not saying that the Nik tools are currently obsolete, but it's inevitable if the industry moves forward without them.)

 

[sanfranchristo]

Hope it's of some help for people just finding them for the first time!

Thanks for all of your articles. I reference them often.

 

[gmb]

Have to take back my ass. Google issued me a refund. I am delighted and amazed. Thank you Google.

 

[Orangutan]

Isn't it hilarious to read submissions from the grammar-police? They clearly forget that we no longer speaketh like wot we did back in Shakespeare's day. Language evolves whether pedants like it or not. The beauty of English is that it can be twisted like a Rubik's cube and yet the writer's intentions are still understood.

Don't get me started on text-speak or that bastard child, "American english". Lol.

you can call me "the grammar-police," and point out the obvious evolution of language or make other glaringly self-evident observations,

Skipping the self-righteous condescension.

if you refuse to recognize the importance of sounding competent in the basics of the language, don't come whining to me if you miss out on that job (or other) opportunity.

This is a false-dichotomy. Yes, at any point in time there are certain rules of "standard English," in each locale. For example, the expressions "knock up" has very different meanings in the U.S. vs. England, and could be considered standard in one, but not the other. The real issue is about context: employing the rules in the proper circumstances. In informal circumstances (e.g. blog posts) I find I'm not so concerned about spelling and grammar; however I would certainly take them into account in a formal document, such as a letter of application for a job. At the other end, it's equally unacceptable to assert the existence of a formal rule which has only informal acceptance (such as the current example)

I just don't understand people who insist on wallowing in ignorance or shun the opportunity to better themselves.

And now the heart of the problem: no one is wallowing in ignorance, but you appear to be wallowing in smugness. You see, I used to be a pedant, too: I frequently corrected people on failed diction and grammar. Then I noticed something about myself: any error of my own that came to my attention became forgivable...at least until I'd fully integrated the rule into my regular use. The problem with pedantry is that each pedant places himself (usually him) as the standard by which "well-known" is distinguished from "obscure" formal rules. Maybe you could test yourself, here are a few to play with: do you pronounce "fillet of sole" correctly? Is "fillet" of French or Anglo-Saxon origin? What about "forte," as in a personal strength? Do you use "decimate" correctly? Nauseous? Google for "pedant bait" if you want to find more examples.

Let's keep formality in the appropriate context.

 

[JonAustin]

Rather than a wholesale refusal to agree the usefulness of correct English, I think there's a big difference between posting a comment on a forum (especially one aimed at photography rather than the minutiae of language) and applying for a job.

And yet, an effective grasp and correct usage of the language is important to both. Readers who know better will make a judgment about you on the basis of your grammatical errors, even if subconsciously.

If you intend working as a journalist, linguist or editor of the OED then verbal skills are high on the agenda. On the other hand, I can't think of any architect, electrical engineer or chemist I've met who knew what it means to conjugate a verb. I imagine you would view them all as dunces. I'll be sure to let them know their careers will now flounder.

I'm sorry to learn that the architects, EEs and chemists in your circles aren't educationally more well-rounded. (BTW, I'm a EE, I've never forgotten the simple task of how to conjugate a verb, and I believe that my command of the language has been a factor in my career success.) My thesis (which apparently slipped past you), applied to your example, is that those professionals in your circle who can't conjugate may lose out to (or may well have lost out to) others in their respective disciplines with a better grasp on the language.

Just for completeness and to bring an end to this wordy tomfoolery, can you let me know your definition of the word "arrogance"?

The obvious response would be that I looked up "arrogance" in the dictionary, and found a picture of you, but that's too easy. (I'll let you have the last word, if you so choose, because this frankly isn't a very challenging exchange.)

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Worth using it, bin using it for years, paid for mine, how how about a refund?

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Thankfully I had bought a few years ago, and at an Education Discount... Still slightly perturbed that something I paid for is now free

I just ask then for a refund, it never hurt to ask.

 

[JonAustin]

Skipping the self-righteous condescension.

No condescension intended, self-righteous or otherwise.

This is a false-dichotomy. Yes, at any point in time there are certain rules of "standard English," in each locale. For example, the expressions "knock up" has very different meanings in the U.S. vs. England, and could be considered standard in one, but not the other. The real issue is about context: employing the rules in the proper circumstances. In informal circumstances (e.g. blog posts) I find I'm not so concerned about spelling and grammar; however I would certainly take them into account in a formal document, such as a letter of application for a job. At the other end, it's equally unacceptable to assert the existence of a formal rule which has only informal acceptance (such as the current example)

OK, so it's not important to you. We get it. The point is, it's important to many people, about some of whose opinions you might care, or who might have influence over aspects of your life or career. But no one said you have to care.

And now the heart of the problem: no one is wallowing in ignorance, but you appear to be wallowing in smugness. You see, I used to be a pedant, too: I frequently corrected people on failed diction and grammar. Then I noticed something about myself: any error of my own that came to my attention became forgivable...at least until I'd fully integrated the rule into my regular use. The problem with pedantry is that each pedant places himself (usually him) as the standard by which "well-known" is distinguished from "obscure" formal rules. Maybe you could test yourself, here are a few to play with: do you pronounce "fillet of sole" correctly? Is "fillet" of French or Anglo-Saxon origin? What about "forte," as in a personal strength? Do you use "decimate" correctly? Nauseous? Google for "pedant bait" if you want to find more examples.

Let's keep formality in the appropriate context.

Oh, but many are wallowing in ignorance, and willfully so. You may call me a smug pendant if you wish, but I recognize that I make mistakes every day. And -- apparently contrary to some -- I'm grateful for correction and instruction, readily admit when I have erred or failed, and try to improve my skill sets on a daily basis. The only alternative would be to continue to make mistakes that I might find embarrassing later. YMMV.

Finally, what's most interesting to me about the entire off-topic series of posts about grammar in this thread, is that neuroanatomist's original observation was in response to something written by the fine folks at Google -- not anyone in the CR forum membership -- and which he led off by confessing that he was "picking a nit." And yet, so many came crawling out of the woodwork to take shots at him, and at anyone who agreed with him. Hmmm.