Blurring, aliasing and juddering in all Nik Collection 7 apps

Hi there, i’ve raised a support request for this but getting rubbish answers so far and wondered if this is expected behaviour and if anyone else has this?

Today I decided to treat myself and upgrade my Nik Collection v3 to v7, paid the fee and installed.

I like the new interface and the apps all load quickly and smoothly. HOWEVER!

In all of the plugins, whether running standalone or from photoshop or lightroom cc, when I’m dragging any slider, the image goes blurry, pixellates, moves around slightly, and looks like absolute ****… until I let go of the slider and then it seems to re-render. It’s not slow or sluggish, it’s just like it can’t render the slider in real time.

Is this expected behaviour?

I shot a video of it and sent it to support but I don’t think they’ve watched it yet: Dropbox - NikCollectionIssue.mkv - Simplify your life

I’ve tried enabling and disabling GPU acceleration and I’ve also tried uninstalling, reinstalling, using the Nik Cleaner tool etc. It just does this whatever I do and however I use the app.

It really screws with my eyes, and I can’t use it like this, but is anyone else having this problem?

So apparently, this is by design…

Upon checking on it with the help of our Technical Support, unfortunately what you experienced is intended behavior as the image is rendering. There is no option to disable it, we apologize for the inconvenience.

Absolutely unusable. And functionally worse than previous version which managed to render in real time no issues.

You’ve jumped the shark here, DxO. I’ll be having a refund thanks.

That the image needs to be rendered with each and every push of a slider is easily understood. Imo, that is the intended part of the behaviour.

The blurring, moving etc. part can’t be intended though, who would like to use such an app.

I had such effects (with PhotoLab) on a 7 years old Mac with spinning platter drive. The new SSD based Mac does not exhibit any quirks so far, but I don’t have Nik7 and don’t intend to get it, except maybe as a trial.

If you could post some information about your PC, workflow and files, someone with similar configurations could try to find out if the issue you see is yours alone or can be reproduced by someone else.

As for the refund… It will probably not happen. As soon as you’ve activated the product, it will not be refunded, exchanged etc. according to Terms and conditions.

All things considered. if your PC is not too old and runs a supported OS, the product should be okay and I’d propose to insist with support in a firm and civil manner.

As far as I recall DXO’s policy is no refunds once you activate the software. Did you not notice this behavior during your 30-day free trial?


Do you see the same behaviour when you use it? (check my video link in the original post). I sent that same video to support which is what provoked the response. I get that effect in every one of the plugins, with pretty much every slider.

I very much doubt it’s my PC. It’s a reasonably high spec machine - intel i5-12600k 3.69 Ghz, 32GB of DDR4 RAM, Geforce RTX 3070TI, SSD hard drive (with the photos sitting on an external USB3.1 SSD).

I will 100% not accept this. I was a user of Nik Collection 3 for years (which does not exhibit this behaviour), I paid for the upgrade and used it for an hour today where I immediately noticed this behaviour and started a support request. Once it became clear that this was “intended behaviour” I asked for a refund. They haven’t responded yet. I haven’t read the terms in detail but they state there is a 90 day warranty period for purchases of software and this should be covered under that - the product is defective and functionally does not work for me.

As stated above I didn’t have a 30-day free trial, this was an upgrade from a previous version that functions perfectly.

I understand it was an upgrade, but you could have installed the trial and tested it with no obligation and then uninstalled if you were unhappy. If you were satisfied with it you could have then purchased the upgrade and entered your new activation code into the trial version. Upgrades are nothing more than the regular production version purchased at a lower price. There is nothing else that differentiates them from a full priced version The only thing that matters is the activation code.


So what you’re saying is that it’s my fault their product is defective, because I could have trialled the product to find out it was faulty before I bought it, even though I’ve used previous versions of the software for over 10 year. It’s my fault because I’m supposed to know up front that dxo don’t like to give refunds, even though Consumer Rights legislation specifically exists to avoid this exact situation. And it’s my fault that by coming here to ask if the fault is a fault or not, I’ve ended up having you here to tell me it’s all my own fault.

What a strange world this is, that you think that’s in any way normal.

The product is defective, it doesn’t work as advertised. You can’t sell someone a defective product and keep their money, and deploy a steeet team to the forum to try and dissuade annoyed customers from complaining.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anything was your fault. I did tell you what DxO’'s refund policy was because you suggested you would ask for one. I asked you if you noticed the behavior during the trial. Many people use the trial before buying. Sometimes issues aren’t apparent during a short trial period. Since you implied you didn’t run a trial because it was an upgrade and you were a satisfied user of an earlier version, for future reference I explained how a free trial could be used before purchasing an upgrade. None of these comments were meant to suggest that your dissatisfaction is your fault in any way. I am sorry I gave you the impression I was blaming you .


  • Do I recall problems with this hardware arrangement being reported some while ago ??

Try moving your images to a local data-storage area - and see if the issue persists.

Have seen your video and find that the transitions don’t look as terrible as your descriptions made me think they were. Nevertheless, the effect is there and I’m a bit astonished that it manifests itself with a jpeg.

Sounds good enough for me…but do you still get the effect with images on the internal drive? Please try to see if it makes a difference.

Before you start fighting, read the conditions and EULA carefully and try to figure out on what grounds you’ll ask for a refund. Imo and from the point of view of what is written, the product works - and there is no mention about the quality of transitions, hence there is no leverage in this. You can still fight, but you might have to write off your investment after all or hope that a future update eliminates the effect.

It really shouldn’t be a problem, but I will try it tonight with a local photo to see if it makes any difference

In 100% zoom mode the artefacts are hideous - a straight crisp line becomes a jagged indistinguishable blur. I’d say the resolution of the “preview” is almost that of a thumbnail.

I’ll shoot another video later since DXO are yet to respond to my latest message

(Also bear in mind that the effect is much more noticeable on a high resolution 27 inch monitor in full screen, as opposed to a compressed 1080p video)

It doesn’t really matter what their EULA says, consumer rights act 2015 states they have to remedy the fault in the product… (it’s a photo editing software, if you can’t view the photo properly while you’re editing it that is the very definition of a fault)

But also, it’s basic customer service. You sold someone something, there is clearly and demonstrably something wrong with it, the customer has a system which meets the requirement you stated and has provided the evidence. Just refund and move on.

Installed Nik Collection 6 and found that adjusting a 6 Megapixel Kodak CD TIFF file located on the boot drive cannot be adjusted smoothly. Both the preview and the slider(s) change in steps that are, hmm, certainly not up to what most other apps can do. Nevertheless, sliders can be moved by the left and right arrow keys, but not the up and down arrow keys.

Strangely, the 1,4 GB Lightroom stitched panorama TIFF I also tested behaves less jumpy.

Tested with Nik 6 Viveza on macOS 14.5 on 2019 5K retina iMac.

well, those of you who said dxo don’t like providing refunds - you were correct, so far they are refusing to do so.

I am still pushing for one because this is quite clearly a defect - which was not present in an earlier version of the software but is present in this version.

By refusing to fix the defect or to provide a refund they are in breach of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consumer Rights Act 2015) for the sale of digital content.

In short, the software is not fit for the purpose for which it is described (it’s a photo editor, and I can’t see the effect of my edits while I am making them), and is not free from defects. They say that this is intended behaviour and that the software “has to render”, but the old version seemed to be able to do this without blurring, pixellating, aliasing and making it very difficult to see the effect of the edit. This is quite clearly a defect.

Here are the key provisions:

Schedule 9 (Statutory Rights > Goods to be fit for particular purpose)

Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

(b)appearance and finish;

(c)freedom from minor defects;



Schedule 20 (Right to reject)

(4)Each of these rights entitles the consumer to reject the goods and treat the contract as at an end, subject to subsections (20) and (21).

(5)The right is exercised if the consumer indicates to the trader that the consumer is rejecting the goods and treating the contract as at an end.

(6)The indication may be something the consumer says or does, but it must be clear enough to be understood by the trader.

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—

(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and

(b) the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

(9)The consumer’s entitlement to receive a refund works as follows.

(10)To the extent that the consumer paid money under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of money.

I’m including this because don’t ever let anybody tell you that you have no right to a refund just because a company tries to impose their own terms & conditions. They’re in breach of their statutory obligations, and to be quite honest it’s a terrible look and a terrible way to behave with your customers.

Here’s another video with closeup. See the issue more clearly now?

the above video was recorded on an image which is on my internal drive, so that rules out it being anything to do with my external drive.

Just to be clear, I also never suggested you were not entitled to a refund. I was just stating DxO’s policy.


I do not use Nik 7, but what you are seeing seems to be present in CEP5 and 6.

Did you check/uncheck this option?

Yep - makes no difference unfortunately