Can Capture NX2 do it all?

<p><em>(Moderator: If this is more appropriate for Digital Darkroom, I would be OK with a move, but I thought I'd get more responses from Nikon folks.)</em></p>

<p>I am teaching myself Capture NX2. I bought the full version, with CD, user's manual, etc. I am learning how to do things I used to do in Photoshop with an eye toward possibly eliminating Photoshop. Have any of you NX2 users here successfully moved away from PS, or are there things you just can't do in NX2? If so, what are those things? (Please don't take this in the Lightroom, Aperture, etc. direction. Not gonna go there.) Thanks!</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Will: I get a lot done in NX2, but sometimes open images in other editors when I have to do more elaborate cloning operations, or when I need to overlay some text, deal with a border, and some other odds and ends.<br /><br />NX2 certainly does all of the heavy lifting for me, most of the time. But there are a few itches it can't scratch. It hasn't helped with my mixed metaphors, either, apparently.</p>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>Ah, yes -- cloning and text. I use cloning a lot, text less frequently. I'm so new to NX2 that I didn't even realize those are missing.</p>

<p>Thanks, Matt.</p>

<p>No way! Capture Nx2 is so slow and some adjustments so poorly designed that I only do a set of rough adjustments in it and then do the rest of the editing in Photoshop.</p>

<p>I do everything on NX with the exception of cloning. NX only has a healing tool which is not very good.<br>

I find it much better than PS. What I'm trying to say is that I find PS too complicated.<br>

I think you will need another software to view your images, either NX View, LR or Aperture.<br>

I do all my RAW work on NX and then I convert all the images that I wanna keep to JPG's. These JPG's I view them on Aperture and I can add frames, text and do cloning before printing or using the files for web, mail, etc. </p>

<p>Actually, I find NX's healing tool to do <em>most</em> things well - in the sense of getting rid of a bit of dust on clothing, a simple mark on a face, etc. When I talk about complex cloning, I'm talking about the get-rid-of-the-telephone-pole variety, or the swap-out-the-eyeballs sort of work.<br /><br />You DO need a well-oiled machine to run it successfully, though. 3GB+ RAM, and a non-cluttered disk drive or two.</p>

<p>I like Capture NX2 a lot, but it certainly won't do everything. Things that NX2 can't do include: stitching multiple shots into a panorama; blending two or more different exposures of the same scene; adding a sky or other element from one image into another image; cloning objects (although the spot removal tool in NX2 is very good); adding text; stretching or distorting all or a portion of the image to change perspective or eliminate unwanted elements; and make borders and frames. NX2 also doesn't have nearly as many creative filters (something I use infrequently); doesn't have as many tools for masking and selections (although I find the masks generated by NX2 control points to be quite good); and doesn't have the same range of options for sharpening and noise reduction. Photoshop also has quite a few more tools for specialized graphics work but I've just listed things of interest to most photographers.</p>

<p>I've been playing with that healing tool this morning (Auto Retouch Brush in NX2), and I'm not sure that I agree Photoshop's is better. The one in NX2 seems easier to use and the results are outstanding. But that is actually straying from the original post, which is about what can't be done in NX2 (not what is better in one vs. the other).</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>If I wanted to use NX2 as the raw converter, and then Photoshop for most other manipulations, what's the best way to make the connection? 16bit TIFFs? Is it better to do exposure and color corrections in NX2, or can enough information be passed to PS through 16bit tiffs that PS has access to the same dynamic range as the raw converter.</p>

<p>If you do color and exposure adjustments in PS, is it better to just use a raw converter that plugs into PS (ACR?)?</p>

 

<p>My plan is to do as much as possible to NEF images in NX2, then save as TIF. I'll use Photoshop on the TIF for additional editing that I can't do in NX2 before going final with a JPEG. Anybody see a flaw in that plan? (Storage space is not an issue.) I know I can save the NEF in NX2 and it will remember all the edits for me, but that causes problems with other visual file browsers -- the edited NEF won't view properly outside of NX2. (Again, please don't stray into the Lightroom/Aperture/ACR/Picasa, etc. areas -- not going there.)</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>I work out of both. I start in NX2 & then, move when needed to CS3. Of late I have gotten to feel an increase in concern about theft of photos. Not that mine at much to steal - but I do feel strongly that they're mine & not available for others to claim as theirs. So now I add my copyright to mine - that has to be done in CS3. Cloning is also something done in CS3 (not that I do much).<br>

So my feeling is that the best way for me is to do my main pp work in CS3 & then move along for specifics (as needed) in CS3. Both are needed.<br>

And just so that we're on the clear on the text issue with NX2 - - I told Niksoftware about that a long time ago. That it was needed. I guess they chose to not listen or they figure that we can do it digitally (I was pointing out copyright) & that they thought would be enough - - it's not cause it's not visible.</p>

<p>I have a problem printing from NX2. It won't do a true borderless print for me, so I save tiff and go to PS for printing.<br>

Otherwise, I love it for basic cropping, levels and contrast, color balance, and some selective functions in limited areas of the image. I shoot RAW.<br>

Julian</p>

<p>I have a problem printing from NX2. It won't do a true borderless print for me, so I save tiff and go to PS for printing.<br>

Otherwise, I love it for basic cropping, levels and contrast, color balance, and some selective functions in limited areas of the image. I shoot RAW.<br>

Julian</p>

<p>Julian brings up a good point: NX2 talks to my dye-sub printer just fine. Does exactly what it's supposed to. But it lapses into major stupidity when talking to lower-end Epson printers... it simply can't reconcile its own page setup parameters with the printer driver's ideas, and you end up with truly baffling borderless printing behavior. So, that's obviously a driver/API issue, maybe even an operating system version issue. <br /><br />Other than that, I like it and use it every day. Most of my other file handling is done in Corel's X3 package. The PhotoPaint module within that suite is their take on the role that Photoshop plays for Adobe. I actually like it a lot (and it's <em>cheap</em> by comparison - and much under appreciated, I think).</p>

<p><em>Still not sure why some ppl feel NX is slow. If it's configured properly and not running on a dinosaur, it runs just fine; although it does have a software architecture that holds memory; not a problem unless you're doing extensive processing over a few hours..in which case I just close it and re-launch.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Can you totally escape Adobe PS?...I can't, at least not all the time.<br>

NX is superior when working with NEF's...The codecs read more accurately as they should, it's a Nikon program built by (NIK) for Nikon NEF's.</p>

<p>What it can <strong>not</strong> do and where Adobe shines is layers. NX can't do layers.<br>

Can you get by w/o layers? I suppose you can.</p>

<p>The long & short of this, I doubt you will be able to totally escape Adobe.<br>

I've seen nothing better than NX for processing NEF's...If you area Canon user, disregard. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kevin: while NX2 doesn't refer to things as layers, it <em>does</em> do things in steps. You can adjust, for example, the opacity of any step you've previously taken, without impacting subsequently performed tasks, each which have their own masks/selections. The vocabulary is a little different, but the concept is the same.</p>

<p>I'll add that I've used Photoshop since 1995, so I'm pretty comfortable with it. The color correction tools are far better than in NX2; in NX2 white balance adjustment is both slow, coarse and badly designed (cannot for example see what is the recorded WB nor finetune it) and curves do not permit the keyboard shortcuts in PS nor does the curve adjustment feel as exact. In PS, I like to make number of adjustment layers, which can also be faded in and out when needed. BW conversion is much more flexible in PS, I never really liked the BW conversion in NX2. Probably a number of other things that I can't recall right now.<br>

On a positive note, I like the crop and straighten tools more in NX2 than in PS, but that's it.<br>

A lot of digital editing is not about what can be done, but how fast it can be done. If editing hundreds of images it's not desirable to waste time due to badly designed software.</p>

<p>Oskar, I certainly wouldn't try to argue about what someone does or does not find convenient to use. However, Capture NX2 does have very powerful color correction tools. The lack of specification of the recorded WB is a deficiency, but the rest of WB seems to work as well as PS, at least for me. The LCH adjustment in NX2 is an extremely powerful color adjustment tool. NX2's decision to combine levels and curves into one adjustment screen is an improvement over Photoshop. The color picker and swatches functions that can be applied to control points in NX2 can greatly simplify the task of getting realistic looking adjustments to skin tones, foliage and other problem areas.</p>

<p>As pointed out above, NX2 makes all adjustments in edit steps that are functionally the same as Photoshop levels (non-destructive with variable opacity). Indeed, NX2 has something that is lacking in PS, the ability to separately fade the luminance and chrominance effects of an adjustment. As for B&W conversion, I find that there are some shots that work well in NX2 and some in PS, but for some reason I find that I usually have a clear favorite for any given shot (i.e., one or the other gives me a better result).</p>

<p>I do most of my editing in NX2 but I do use Lightroom to manage my files, sort them, make small refinements, and print them out. Also, I use Photoshop CS4 for many images to do some things e.g. sharpening when printing large etc. NX2 is slow sometimes but I think it's unavoidable when working with high ISO Nikon DSLR based images - it's got algorithmic superiority over Adobe's software, IMO. Buggy, though. </p>

<p>Despite being tedious and annoying to use, NX2 is pretty powerful and I ccould use NX2 for 80-90%. For really heavy work photoshop is required though and there is no getting away from it.<br>

I use lightroom the most though since it is a true workflow tool, fast and 64bit. I just wish it could do skin tones like NX2 :(</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The vocabulary is a little different, but the concept is the same.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Matt,<br>

Perhaps you and I are normal ppl separated by a common language. ;)</p>

<p>1) NX for instance will not allow 2 photos at 2 different exposures to be laid one on top of the other.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>without impacting subsequently performed tasks</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed; but these are better referred to as "Instructions" which are of course non-destructive. Adobe we know does not work this way unless we stay in the .psd format.</p>

<p>2) NX can not "photomerge"...again a function of layers.</p>

<p>That is what I meant when I said NX can not work in layers..and it really does not.</p>

<p>3) NX is lacking many of the blendng modes (which are derived from layering) I sometimes require.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The LCH adjustment in NX2 is an extremely powerful color adjustment tool.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Great point John.</p>

<p>So much so that I rarely open the levels & curves adjustments as the LCH control is absolutely awesome for tonality changes w/o clippin' & rippin' my color channels.</p>

<p>NX2 is greatly underappreciated for noise handling of NEF files. It's astonishingly better than everything else I've tried for my D300 files at ISO 1600.<br>

NX2 might truly be game changing if it was a RAW plug-in instead of a stand-alone program. If it would only work like that with Aperture, I'd probably be set for most everything I do with digital capture. (And for the fine-art printing, most of which begins with film captures, I'd be thrilled to dump Adobe, if there were viable alternatives to PS. Alas, it's too embedded to abandon.)</p>

<p>I do almost 80-90% of my web-based images on NX2 these days. If I am printing, I still use PS/CS4 for finer controls using layering and better printing engines. I do not think NX2 can fully replace PS/CS4 in the current form.</p>

 

<p>The responses above are well stated and very objective. I use NX2 for processing my NEF files for all of the reasons already stated, especially those dealing with LCH, plus one other--U Point technology or control points, that are not found in Photoshop, unless you purchase the plug in from NIK software. The one thing I use Photoshop for is to add my copyright to my images--what others have called text. I became a confirmed NX2 user when a fellowand accomplished nature photographer--a Canon Photoshop guy--was helping me make nature image selections from my original NEF images. He was blown away by the quality of the NEF images rendered by Capture NX right out of the camera and what little (time) was needed to get to the final NEF or TIFF compared to what he had to do with his RAW images in his CS3/CS4 workflow. Plus the adjusted NEF files are smaller than PSD files. To use NX2 efficiently you need to set the cache settings properly for your given RAM/hard drive conditions. Do not overlook this important step. Joe Smith</p>