NX2 or LR3 for Raw Conversion

<p>I know this topic has been touched on before, but I have a specific couple of questions.<br>

I am about to purchase a D700 and I am contemplating which raw converter to use in the initial workflow.<br>

Would I be better to use LR3 for everything...raw conversion and then editing and archiving, or would it be better to use NX2 JUST for the raw conversion, and export the files to LR3 as tiff's to complete the editing etc? (is this the correct workflow for this possible solution?). <br>

Technically, what would I gain or lose by doing this? I really want to use LR3 for workflow, but there are so many comments that NX2 works better for raw conversion as it understands the NEF file format better. Some say that the engine in LR3 is as good now for converting NEF files.<br>

Please don't conplicate the responses by suggesting some other favourite raw converter instead. Getting my head around the complexities of digital post processing workflow is tough enough for this old film shooter.</p>

<p>You'll have to decide whether you prefer NX2's raw conversion enough to warrant the complication of your workflow, and the loss of not offering LR access to the raw data.</p>

<p>I'm not at all convinced that NX2 is *better*. Different, yes. Better, that's a personal decision.</p>

<p>100% agree. And this is my dilema. I will be getting LR3 anyway, so perhaps I should start there, and if their seems to be a need, then use NX2 which I already have. I probably would not be skilled enough at post processing to detect a difference anyway.<br>

The simplification to the workflow of just using LR3 is a strong argument.<br>

The other ponderable is that I also shoot a lot of film, so scanning it and exporting the tiff's into LR3 would be simple, I'd imagine.</p>

 

 

<p>Before the latest versions of LR, PS and ACR came out a few months ago, this was an easy question to answer (at least, IMHO) -- NX2 was clearly better. Now, it's about a toss-up w.r.t. raw conversion quality. OTOH, NX2 has some nice adjustments that LR3 doesn't have. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

 

<p>I've been using ACR for D300 & D700 NEF conversions since day one. After reading many posts about how NX2 does the best possible RAW conversion, I downloaded a trial copy of NX2. I just couldn't get past the clunky interface and have never looked back. Moreover, I found some D300 and D700 ACR presets that, IMHO, produce some terrific results. In a nutshell, I strongly agree with Mark's last statement.</p>

<p>The important difference between NX2 and LR/ACR is that NX2 recognizes Nikon camera image settings and LR2 recognizes only WB setting. So working with NX2 you have starting point which resembles the jpg from your camera and the camera screen and with LR you do not have it.</p>

<p>For some people that’s a reason for using NX2. Personally I use LR3 and I do not care for that starting point. The camera interpretation of the scene only distracts me. <strong>I use raw format exactly because I want to have full control over the output and I have a vision in my head what I want to achieve.</strong> I can get the look I want much quicker and much easier with LR. As for the conversion itself I do not think that NX2 conversion is better than LR3 conversion. Using camera profiles with LR3 you can get much the same interpretation as with NX2 if you want (I don't).</p>

<p>Another major difference between NX2 and LR is that LR is also a decent digital asset management tool.</p>

<p>Regards, Marko</p>

<p>The appeal of shooting RAW for me is the fact that I'm not asking the camera to do any processing, but having that done in LR3.<br>

To streamline workflow, I was hoping to be able to save a set of adjustments like a template and apply them to categories such as sports and landscapes. The crucial thing for me is to batch process. The other requirements is that lots of the stock agencies require a set of given adjustments and a certain minimum tiff file size. These requirements are for work. For my own purposes I would do a lot more or differently.<br>

Its looking like I will allow LR3 to do it all.</p>

<p>It's a lot less trouble and potential work to just convert it to 16-bit TIFF in NX2 and then continue with whatever other editor you have - assuming you need to do something that NX2 can't do. You could even just use ViewNX 2 if it's just to convert the raw, because it's the same conversion anyway. You can easily auto-convert a whole folder of raw files that way and send them to any destination you want, ready for anything else you might want to do.</p>

<p>Just don't convert to DNG and close the door on your options</p>

<p lang="en-US">Well regarding the conversion to dng: if you make an informed decision for the LR/ACR path I see a lot of advantages in conversion to dng on import and very few if any disadvantages. But you must be aware that there is no way back to NX2 and other converters that work with nef raw format only. I made decision for dng path some 53.000 pictures ago and have no regrets. Especially with LR getting better all the time and NX2 stagnating.</p>

<p lang="en-US"> </p>

<p lang="en-US">Regards, Marko</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You'll have to decide whether you prefer NX2's raw conversion enough to warrant the complication of your workflow, and the loss of not offering LR access to the raw data.<br /> After reading many posts about how NX2 does the best possible RAW conversion, I downloaded a trial copy of NX2. I just couldn't get past the clunky interface and have never looked back.<br /> <strong>I use raw format exactly because I want to have full control over the output and I have a vision in my head what I want to achieve.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>All good suggestions that point to forming an opinion based on testing the options and ultimately picking what <em>you</em> prefer in terms of the tools and workflow! So I’ll add to this another voice that your best bet is to download a demo of each, through some difficult to render raws at them and see what you think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1763462">Garrison K.</a> Just don't convert to DNG and close the door on your options</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, other thread hijacked attempt. No where in the text above this nonsense of Mr.K is the word or term DNG used but once again, we see Mr.K going OT for the 2nd time <strong>just today</strong>. Is there a list mom who can put this troll in line?<br>

Yes, removing options is a good thing... not.</p>

<p>Marko, what advantages do you find? I stopped converting and don't see a reason any more. I used to do it for file size reasons, burning to cd and hdd's small, and for the speed that they opened up vs raw. But since faster computers and large cheap hard drives I haven't bothered in three or four years now and don't find any need for dng.</p>

<p lang="en-US">I see two main advantages of dng path:</p>

<p lang="en-US">1. I want to be sure that I will be able to open raw files in years to come and I am convinced that dng as a very good documented raw file format is more likely to survive. I do not like proprietary closed formats especially not from Nikon which does not have a good reputation as a software company.</p>

<p lang="en-US">2. Using dng files I got rid of the sidecar xmp files. I have 53.000 dng files in about a hundred directories and I really do not want to deal with additional 53.000 sidecars.<br>

Regards, Marko</p>

<p>I wonder how long it will take Nikon and Canon to start using open DNG as their RAW file format? I see that Leica have gone that route with its RAW files.<br>

I guess an important step got me in the workflow would be to archive the RAW file as it comes out of the camera and then work on a copy in NX2 and then LR3.<br>

My only caveat I have with relying on a 100% Adobe solution is the fact that Adobe is likes to use file formats to make you more dependent on their solution. And this goes to the way they organise image files which can't be found using Windows Explorer or the Finder. And this is true of all their products.<br>

I worked for an Adobe Enterprise Software partner and though their solutions were elegant, one had to go along with their proprietary filing formats and structures.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And this goes to the way they organise image files which can't be found using Windows Explorer or the Finder. And this is true of all their products.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What? I certainly can't speak for all of their products, but how is this true for Lightroom?</p>

<p>I knew when I pressed the confirm button that it would prick some Adobe fans.<br>

Two good examples: The "catalogue" based filing system instead of a Windows or Finder based system, and the .psd file type used unless you specify an open one like tiff or jpeg.<br>

It doesnt affect me because I have to output all my commercial files as tiffs, so I avoid this problem. I hate proprietary systems and lived with the problem for 30 years in my IT career. </p>

<p>I have a similar approach in my own IT career, but I gott say your hatred proprietary systems is your hammer, and everything you see is a nail... </p>

<p>It's a bit of hyperbole to say that Lightroom organizes image files in ways that can't be found with Explorer or Finder! They're on your disk in folders, and Lightroom shows you that folder hierarchy. And you have freedom of choice over derivative file types. I think you're really stretching it.</p>

<p>I think its less than optimal that you need to fire up LR3 to get at your files, thats all, but I guess if you save them in a tiff or jpeg format then you don't need LR3 to find them. We'll soon find out.<br>

Another writer mentioned View NX2. And yes, I can use that for the initial RAW conversion if I want to.<br>

So there are some options here and I'll give them all a go and see what suits me first.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Garrison K. wrote:<br /><em>Just don't convert to DNG and close the door on your options</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just tick the <em><strong>Embed Original Raw File</strong></em> option under <strong>Preferences</strong> if using Adobe DNG Converter, or choose this option in Bridge, so you can do it on the fly when downloading RAW images from a memory card (screen shots follow), and you will loose no options. Also, refer <a href="00Xn4Z"><em>Embed Original Raw File option</em></a> thread.</p>

<div></div>

<p>As noted, you do NOT have to fire up LR3 to access any images. The images live in the normal folder hierarchy. The .lrcat format? Standard SQLite database.</p>

<p>As I recall, Jeff Schewe is a strong proponent of using layered TIFF as the PS default format (PSD is a bastardized TIFF) but I don't recall his technical arguments or any gotcha's in doing so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p lang="en-US">I see two main advantages of dng path:</p>

<p lang="en-US">1. I want to be sure that I will be able to open raw files in years to come and I am convinced that dng as a very good documented raw file format is more likely to survive. I do not like proprietary closed formats especially not from Nikon which does not have a good reputation as a software company.</p>

<p lang="en-US">2. Using dng files I got rid of the sidecar xmp files. I have 53.000 dng files in about a hundred directories and I really do not want to deal with additional 53.000 sidecars.<br /> Regards, Marko</p>

</blockquote>

<p lang="en-US"> </p>

<p lang="en-US">Thanks Marko. I agree Nikon software horrible. But how though, if Nikon is proprietary and closed, how come more software choices with nef's than the "open sourced" dng?</p>

<p lang="en-US"> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As noted, you do NOT have to fire up LR3 to access any images. The images live in the normal folder hierarchy. The .lrcat format? Standard SQLite database.<br>

As I recall, Jeff Schewe is a strong proponent of using layered TIFF as the PS default format (PSD is a bastardized TIFF) but I don't recall his technical arguments or any gotcha's in doing so.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Howard, the only problem with pulling your dng or raw out of the folder is that you might not have your LR edit's saved. I set LR up to write changes as they happen. I also use Bridge at the same time and need it "real time"</p>

<p>Tiff's are larger than psd. But I don't mind. And perhaps Jeff had the same problem many did when he opened Lightroom for the first time and pointed the import at 17 years of psd files and got the same warning from Lightroom: "LR could not open 12, 000 psd's in 40,000 folders. Please re-open them and save with max compatibility setting."</p>

<p>Of course there's no text file saved by LR telling you what psd files are the culprits and where they are. But unbelievable that a newer Adobe product can't open older Adobe psd's and is another reason why I stay away from Adobe file formats.</p>

<p>Tomek, thanks for all the effort of going to screen shots! I appreciate it but after a few years of converting to dng and then being locked out of NX2, DX0 and a handful of others, I fail to see any benefit in DNG in the first place let alone making a DNG file larger with the embedded nef. Thanks though.</p>

<p>DNG was a great idea but it hasn't taken off like we hoped. DNG will never be the jpg equivalent of the raw file format. Largely because we, professionals and advanced amateurs, seem to think that because we use adobe software, we assume everyone does. Not the case in the least. Almost every dslr shoots raw today and many with thier $500 D40 venture into shooting raw and getting away from jpg. They load dpp or nx2 or freebies like picasa and never take it a step further or would consider paying for Adobe software.</p>

<p>Until there is a compelling reason for this huge market of raw shooters, that will never own Adobe, to somehow take extra steps and download yet another piece of software (DNG converter) and spend the time converting to dng and then return and open their freebie raw converter and get down to business, DNG will never fly.</p>

<p>Side car files don't bother me. I don't see them. Windows is set to have known files types be out of view.</p>

<p>I have more software choices with NEF. I've already been screwed over by DNG and psd. I feel Adobe is the only name in the game and at the moment use them to make my living. But I'm not in love with them nor fly thier flag and always look for alternative dark room processes and more tools in the tool chest.</p>

<p>Time machine, Norton Ghost, and others that do incremental back ups, only re-save fies that have been altered. So a folder containing raw and thier xmp side car files is backed up quicker than a folder of dng's. With xmp, client and author can share the raw file and then email the xmp back and forth for changes.</p>

<p>I don't see a reason to back up two raw file types: nef and dng when they both look and behave the same way in LR, Bridge and Photoshop.</p>

<p>DNG seems to be a favorite amongst Lightroom users. I think this is because it is in your face when importing. The Photoshop and Element users seem to not bother to the same extent. Some aren't even aware. Even the DNG converter itself is exclude with raw updates now.</p>

<p>DNG's take longer to work with. I don't see the plus for the conversion time needed. When converted, I'm not comfortable with the information that this thrown out by the DNG conversion process. I'd rather keep it in my nef and perhaps play/need it in the future. My computers are fast, my hard drive large, and storage is cheap. I'd rather have my info and options open.</p>

<p>Most importantly, the sky is not falling like some zealots claim. If I can convert to DNG today, I will be able to tomorrow or next year.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tiff's are larger than psd.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They can be and they can be the same size (or even smaller) depending on how you save them! The statement in that simplistic form is incorrect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And perhaps Jeff had the same problem many did when he opened Lightroom for the first time and pointed the import at 17 years of psd files and got the same warning from Lightroom...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, he doesn’t prefer proprietary file formats over open file formats hence he prefers, as I do, TIFF. Jeff like I fully understand the importance of the proper settings for saving TIFFs out of Photoshop. We also know to check the proper preferences for saving layered data like PSD. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>DNG will never be the jpg equivalent of the raw file format. DNG will never fly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never is a long time. Its interesting to see people make such statements with nothing possible to back up the idea. It may be correct, it may not be correct. But the statement alone is useless and meaningless because only time will tell and <em>never</em> spans a very long time frame. The sentence as such is easily dismissed for those reasons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel Adobe is the only name in the game and at the moment use them to make my living.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OT but just what would that be? Many of us are curious...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With xmp, client and author can share the raw file and then email the xmp back and forth for changes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same with DNG. XMP without the raw is not real useful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DNG's take longer to work with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How so?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When converted, I'm not comfortable with the information that this thrown out by the DNG conversion process.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The proprietary data that is only accessible by the manufacturers convert. Fair enough, keep the raw or don’t convert to DNG. Most of us using DNG could care less about proprietary data a converter we don’t use can access and access with questionable usefulness.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I can convert to DNG today, I will be able to tomorrow or next year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if I convert to DNG today, I can go back to the proprietary raws tomorrow.</p>

<p>At the risk of hijacking this thread...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>unbelievable that a newer Adobe product can't open older Adobe psd's</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>Jeff Schewe is a strong proponent of using layered TIFF as the PS default format (PSD is a bastardized TIFF) but I don't recall his technical arguments or any gotcha's in doing so.</blockquote>

<p>Didn't know that (hope they provided a way to batch-update the incompatible files), but this might be the reason behind Jeff's suggestion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>TIFFs can be the same size (or even smaller) [than PSDs] depending on how you save them! <br />I fully understand the importance of the proper settings for saving TIFFs out of Photoshop. <br />We also know to check the proper preferences for saving layered data like PSD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Always wondered about various options I was presented with, so since the discussion drifted this way, hope you don't mind if I take this opportunity to check whether I'm making the right choices:</p>

<ul>

<li>Image Compression: LZW (read somewhere that this format is more popular, i.e., more software can handle it, than ZIP)</li>

<li>Pixel Order: no clue -- when and how would it matter?</li>

<li>Byte Order: Macintosh (only because I read in Corbis's technical requirements doco that this is how they want it, not that I submit anything to them, mind you, but just thought there might be a good reason for that)</li>

<li>Save Image Pyramid -- what's that? -- what are the pros vs cons of ticking this box?</li>

<li>Save Transparency -- grayed out</li>

<li>Layer Compression -- so, do you save layered files as TIFFs or in the PSD format? -- if the former, I'd go with ZIP, but then wouldn't it be odd to have image compressed in LZW but layers within in ZIP? (and if the latter, do you check the 'maximize compatibility' box for PSDs? -- thought that was for other apps, which I don't own/use, not for "future-proving")</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks in advance for your tips!</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Image Compresision:</strong><br>

If you save 16-bit TIFF documents, the JPEG compression radio button will be grayed out since JPEG can’t support this bit depth. The other option, and the one I recommend if your goal is to produce a smaller TIFF (for back-up to DVD as an example) is LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) which does support the saving of high bit (16-bit) TIFFs. The Zip option is even less supported and therefore, until Adobe updates the TIFF format LZW is probably your best choice in a compression scheme. If the size of a document isn’t an issue in your workflow, save a TIFF with no compression. This will allow you to open and save the TIFF far faster than using either JPEG or LZW compression.</p>

<p>The bottom line here is that, PSDs with the File Compatibility checked and layered TIFFs are essentially equal with the TIFFs capable of being saved as smaller documents at the expense of slower opening and saving. Compressing and decompressing take a bit of a speed-hit as you would expect. Another benefit of TIFF is it’s an openly documented format and far more commonly supported in other applications than PSD, which is a proprietary format. </p>

<p><strong>Byte Order</strong>: <em>Mac or PC</em>? Well that’s a debate that will continue on, but in this case, pick PC since the Mac will have no issues with this Byte order but the ancient PC software may.</p>

<p><strong>Pixel Order:</strong> <em>Interleaved</em> is supposed to be a more common way of saving a TIFF and the default, traditional method used by Photoshop from day one. The <em>Per Channel</em> option is supposed to be a little faster at reading and writing the data. The dialog does give some idea of what the differences are; the pixel order is the way color information is written in the document, so with interleaved, each pixel is written in the RGB sequence (RGB, RGB, etc) while Per Channel is written in that order (RR, GG, BB etc).</p>

<p><strong>Save Image Pyramid</strong>: This is an option few need to worry about as few modern applications utilize this method of storing multiple resolution levels within a single document. If you’re old enough to recall Kodak PhotoCD, FlashPix or Live Picture’s IVUE format, you have experienced formats that used multiple resolution levels within a single document. TIFF also supports this mode and hence, its an option in the Save dialog. You probably have no reason use it however.</p>

<p><strong>Layer Compression:</strong> How should the layer data be compressed? Note that with layers, it’s the pixels themselves, not the transparency that accounts for the increase in document size. So if you have a 2^nd layer that is all pixel data, it will take up far more space than a layer that has only a small part of image data, surrounded by transparency (the checker board). An Adjustment layer is tiny, its essentially metadata describing a correction. <em>RLE</em> (Run Length Encoding) uses a lossless compression much like LZW on your layers. Or you can use <em>Zip</em> for an even smaller document but at the expense of speed in saving and opening the document. Both greatly aid in keeping the resulting TIFF with backwards compatibility to a manageable size. Your call here, faster speed or smaller documents? </p>

 

<p>Tomek, I don't compress my tiff's. I don't need too. They're larger than psd's though.</p>