Better RAW conversion with Lightroom than Capture NX?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by sprouty, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. I'm just about at the end of my 30-day trial period for both Lightroom and
    Capture NX. Before I buy though, I was wondering if anyone else has had
    better luck with LR over NX with respect to RAW conversion?

    Pretty much everything you read favors the Nikon software for acurate skin
    tones and colors, but my experience is the exact opposite. Almost every image
    I've worked on seems to look better in Lightroom, not to mention the vastly
    superior workflow.

    And if it matters, my monitor is calibrated.

  2. Why should you care if Capture NX works better for others?
    If Lightroom is what you prefer then keep Lightroom.
    Let others keep what they like.

    I am a Capture NX user.
  3. I was only wondering why because I am in the process of choosing between the two applications and I was having better luck with Lightroom than Capture NX.

    Considering that most every opinion I've read states that NX does a better job of converting NEF's I was simply curious if I might be doing something wrong.
  4. Lightroom has archiving capabilities in addition to editing capabilities. I have, and use
    Capture NX, but I'm considering Lightroom because of archiving, and it has to be faster than
    Picture Project. Lightroom also works seamlessly with Photoshop.
  5. I have both and I prefer Lightroom in terms of work flow, ease of use and results straight from the conversion. Moreover, if you ever decide to switch from Nikon cameras, Lightroom supports a wide range of RAW files.
  6. After using quite a few products (including Lightroom, which I thought was quite good) I settled on NX for NEFs because in my case it does the best rendering.

    If you feel that Lightroom does a better job for you, then by all means, use it.

    If there was clearly 1 best product most people would be using it. Apparently different people feel differently about PP products and that probably accounts for the the product glut in the market.

    I can only reiterate: you needn't give a toss about what anyone thinks about anything; use the product that does the job for you.
  7. "I can only reiterate: you needn't give a toss about what anyone thinks about anything; use
    the product that does the job for you."

    It's perfectly acceptable to ask about these things, as one can learn why people prefer one
    over the other. That is how folks learn about the features that might be useful to them, or
  8. In this case the asker of the question already has formed an opinion
    about whether he/she prefers product "X" to product "Y".

    I failed to notice if Photoshop was part of the equation. If yes, it wasn't mentioned.

    I would continue to use NX whether or not Photoshop was part of my
    "workflow". It is not. I use specific products for specific needs;
    IMatch for data base organisation (powerful software), Noise Ninja for noise removal (as required), Picture Window and/or Bibble for
    "pixel-peeping", and, as stated above NX for rendering NEFs into

    For as long as NEFs are the issue NX remains a viable choice. For my
    Fuji RAWs I use Bibble or PW, for scanned photos, VueScan and Noise
    Ninja an so forth.

    Horses for courses.

    I should think that the very best way to learn how to use a product is to actually use that product and experiment with it and check results.
    It seems that has been done here. That's how folks learn about the
    features that might be useful to them . . .

    sp has the answer.
  9. Thanks for the input guys. I was thinking that I might being doing something stupid and that someone might offer a "make sure you have this feature selected" tip. Apparently that's not the case and so I'm pretty sold on Lightroom (though I will really miss those control points in NX).
  10. You might want to take a closer look at the reds and greens. Adobe generates flat results, but if you don't mind then stick with Lightroom.

Share This Page