Will I Need Nikon Capture NX2?

<p>I have been a film photographer (amateur) for about the past nine years. I just recently "went digital," as for the last few years I have been unhappy with the unpredictable results I would sometimes see in processing (using a pro lab). Thus, I have been using my Nikon D200 for the past week or so, and am liking the results. I tend to be rather careful with my shots. I had been using iPhoto to upload my pictures, but am now using Image Capture, as some of the shots looked noisy in iPhoto. I have not seen this after changing to Image Capture. I have a 30-day trail disk for Capture NX, and have been comparing my results. In most things, I have not seen much of a difference between Image Capture and NX. I tend to be one who has neither the time nor desire to do much "doctoring" of my images. In any case, I got a decent deal, and ordered the full version of Capture NX2. It has yet to ship. Will I need this software? I notice that the file size increases when I load into NX. Thus, is there necessarily more resolution there--even if I leave the image untouched? I welcome your comments.</p>

Did you try Nikon's free basic software, NikonView NX2? For you, that would probably do all that you need.

<p>I use Capture NX2 for much of my Nikon work....it is pretty easy to use and quite versatile. The good thing about it is it is optimized for Nikon cameras' characteristics, which makes it easy to extract a little more from raw files.</p>

<p>Try Adobe Lightroom or the excellent free/shareware Raw Therapee. Both have excellent noise reduction utilities. Nikon's software has always felt like a kludge to me. It's capable of producing good results but it's a pain in the neck to use.</p>

<p>One thing isn't quite clear: do you actually use RAW? If you do not use RAW files, you wouldn't need any additional programs at all.... and they shouldn't show any differences really.<br>

f you do use RAW, then to add my 2 cents worth....I like CaptureNX2, it does all usual tasks relatively easy and straightforward. But its interface is indeed not to the taste of all. It's a personal preference (as tools such as Lightroom, CaptureOne or Bibble are equally capable of excellent results) most of all. I really can't tell what you do and do not like. Since you already bought it, why not just try?<br /> However, what Joel says makes sense. Free ViewNX2 does everything you seem to want. Even if you end up using CaptureNX2, ViewNX2 remains an excellent 'companion' for quick edits and workflow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I notice that the file size increases when I load into NX. Thus, is there necessarily more resolution there--even if I leave the image untouched?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When you open in CaptureNX, it will show the real image size in megabytes (as does Photoshop) - so the uncompressed amount of memory it occupies. When you save in CaptureNX2, a high(er) resolution preview JPEG is stored inside the NEF file. This makes the saved files larger than the originals.</p>

<p>LJ: <em>"...It's capable of producing good results but it's a pain in the neck to use...."</em></p>

<p>Since I used to use NX2 a lot, the interface doesn't especially bother me, but I would phrase your statement a bit differently: It's utterly incapable of doing many of the things that can easily be done in PS (eg, layers, all the selection / masking tools, standard plugins, etc.), but it is the absolute quickest possible way to get a NIF file to a point that looks like the in-camera JPG. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Great advice here...<br>

To clarify, yes, while I currently shoot jpeg (fine), I intend to shoot RAW. I have had the camera (the D200) only about a week. <br>

Thus, I gather I will keep the NX2, as it sounds like a good tool for RAW. While on the subject, here is a very basic question: if I shoot RAW, do I need to do any type of special processing within NX2? I ask because I had heard in the past that shooting RAW can be cumbersome (or time consuming). Also, I gather that if I want to send my RAW files somewhere for printing, I would just save them as jpg before sending them? Ritzpix has been recommended to me, and they accept jpg files. I do not believe they take RAW or NEF files.</p>

<p>I use NX2 for 99.9% of my edits. One of the things I like best about it are that it doesn't overwrite your original file when you save your edits. No matter how many edits you make and how many times you save the image, you always have the option to go back to the original file, without having to save a separate copy. I also like the fact the NX2 will read the in-camera settings and apply that to your image. This makes it much easier to get a final image that looks more like what you saw on the LCD. It's not the fastest program out there, but I've never had any problems with crashes that others have reported on any of the machines that I've used it on.</p>

<p>I use the RAW format, primarily because it gives better results when doing shadow/highlights recovery. Raw makes it much easier to increase the dynamic range of your image without having to result to HDR. Also, you can easily fine-tune the white balance in post. If you send the image out for printing, you will have to save it as a .jpeg or .tiff or whatever image type the printer accepts.</p>

<p>I am also a newcomer in developing RAW files; am I right in stating that Raw Therapee's deconvolution sharpening is far superior to NX2's high pass, particularly for low-noise, low ISO files?<br>

Also, RT's highlight reconstruction is very good. I mostly go for luminance reconstruction - I think that is what it's called - works very well on my clouds.<br>

I do have one problem with RT, though: ever so often, when I safe a file as TIF of Jpeg, it is saved as black or nearly black. I cannot link this to any particular operation I apply - any idea how to get rid of this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1541404">Cory Ammerman</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 04, 2012; 10:38 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I use NX2 for 99.9% of my edits. One of the things I like best about it are that it doesn't overwrite your original file when you save your edits. No matter how many edits you make and how many times you save the image, you always have the option to go back to the original file, without having to save a separate copy. </p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>LR also does not mess with the original file. It save the edits separately. I use CNX2 a lot and really like it but the new LR4 might now be easier to get to the final image. LR4 has finally gotten the portrait camera profile very good which is the one I use the most. There are some features that CNX2 has that are much better than LR4 but some how it is much less efficient in how it handles data which translates to slower. This is even with the new version for 64 bit. I hate to say it, but I may start using LR4 more.</p>

<p>= tommy</p>