Why use Nikon's Capture NX instead of PhotoShop and Adobe's RAW convertor

Why would a photographer use Capture NX instead of PhotoShop and Adobe's RAW

convertor? What does NX give us that PhotoShop doesn't?

I really prefer the NX RAW converter to the Adobe converter.

You'd use it because you prefer it. It has some Nikon DSLR specific features and tools that

even ACR 4 in Photoshop CS3 (PsCS3) doesn't have --most notably an ability to do local

edits as well as global edits. It also allows use of some Nikon generated meta-

data that Nikon has chosen not to document.

 

Nikon Capture NX is a very powerful tool, but for me this is outweighed by Nikon's not

wanting to "play nice" with Adobe - -for example any of those edits you do to a Capture

NX processed image are not recognized by Any adobe programs. This is a strategic

decision on Nikon's part, but a very flawed one in my opinion. It is also very slow if you are

working on an OS X Mac. That's another flaw IMO. But those opinion is based on my needs

and workflows.

 

For a more in depth review of Capture NX (which doesn't agree with my assessment) go to:

 

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200611_nikoncapturenx.pdf

 

and

 

http://bonus.ppmag.com/2006/11/review_suppleme.html#more

 

My review of the nikon D2Xs, where I discuss my take on Capture NX is in the same issue

 

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200611_nikond2xs.pdf

Josh,

 

I can't really answer your question as I didn't find Capture NX to be interesting enough to add it to my workflow. Currently I use DxO Optics Pro (see www.dxo.com) to convert my NEF files to DNG and to correct some optical flaws of the lenses I use in the process. From then on it's PS CS2.

 

Carsten

NX is a product with great potential but an implementation which is in many ways flawed. It is incredibly slow. The edits are not seen correctly by other programs which can otherwise view NEF files. NX also doesn't see other program's edits always correctly. While it has some incredible tools it is crippled by bugs and memory management problems.

 

I do use it on occasion when I need the control points. But otherwise I stay clear of it. I consider Nikon's decision to discontinue support of Capture 4.4 on new cameras a big mistake. NX may ultimately become a replacement but right now it is not.

I use both, but my primary application is PhotoShop. I ONLY use NX when I've really messed up the exposure and need to modify my results with the NX exposure correction,D-lighting, and really difficult contrast.

 

Then I save in JPEG and finish up with PhotoShop.

A few months ago, I found Capture NX to give much better reds overall than the Adobe

RAW converter, when converting my D70s NEF files to TIF. Lately though, the new Adobe

RAW plugin has become a lot better, and now I have a hard time deciding which one I like

better. I use Photoshop CS3 now (having just downloaded the Beta and activating it) and

like it very much.

 

There is still more you can do to the file in Nikon Capture NX in terms of changing the

noise reduction and especially D-Lighting, which is a favorite of mine and has saved a few

photos and really is a super feature that I've used quite a bit.

 

I am very hopeful that Nikon will get with it and release a Universal update to NX so it can

run natively on the new Intel Macs, like my brand new Macbook.

 

Dave

I use NX on every Nikon file I convert. I save to a 16bit tif, so the recognition conflicts others mention is not a problem for me. While NX is slow, the amount of time I spend tweaaking files in PS converter just to get close to what NX provides as soon as it opens the file, balances out that trade off. I do not convert tons of files, but am very picky about the ones I choose to convert. It has issues, but so do I... t

It's free for 30 days, you should try it... t

I agree with Tom. NX often gives me a much better image when it first opens than either ACR or DxO - and it is easier to get to the final result that I want for important images. However, I usually take the easier route and just work with ACR for my "first-looks". If lens distortion correction is most important, I use DxO, and with the new "FilterPack" it is terrific for black and white conversions.

Overall I have to say I like what NX will allow you to do, and do it quickly and easily. Doing B/W color mix images is a breeze with NX, plus the conversion to B/W is so good also.

 

It does however have a number of problems, and when you have a problem most people will back away and not use the program.

 

Nikon Capture does not even recognize NX adjustments, not just Photoshop products, so it's not a problem of them not working with Adobe, they didn't even work with Nikon on that.

 

NX does do some things very well, and for those things it is well worth using.

 

It does recognize Nikon Capture edits, so at least what you do with Nikon Capture in your basic getting your RAW files adjusted for color, density and the like.

 

One thing that bothers me still is that each time you go to make a JPEG save, it will not remember your preferance with the quality of the save, you always have to change it every time.

 

It does allow batch processing, but it's a strange way of doing it, not as good as with Nikon Capture.

 

Slow or not slow, well that issue is cleared up very easily, but most people don't do what is best for themselves in the first place. And that is to have a computer that is just for photography, and that computer never sees the Internet.

 

PC computers are subject to all kinds of problems when your on the Internet, so you need spyware, anti-virus and bunch of stuff to help you keep protected.

 

If your computer never sees the light at the end of the cable, (Internet), you do not need any of that installed on your computer, and if you do not have any of that on your computer you will be amazed how much faster your programs will run.

 

If you have a computer that can be lightning fast, and keep a computer just for photography and do not have any of that software on your computer, you will find out just how lightning fast they really can be.

 

However Capture NX does not like the Athlon dual 64 processor, even without any of the software I was talking about, you still have to go into your Microsoft security and disable or change some settings just to get it to work at all.

Thanks for the replies. As far as slow speed goes, why not unplug the Internet cord, and turn off the anti-spyware, anti-virus and firewall, and the e-mail notifies, etc. I am not sure if that will speed things up, but it is worth a try.

I have tried CaptureNX a bit, and if it were not for the SLOW speed of operation, I would probably use if for my main editing program.

 

Perhaps a future update will address the speed issue. If so, I will revisit it.

 

For now, Adobe Camera Raw + PSE4 does the job for me.

The problem with NX NEF file adjustments not being read correctly by other software is not a lack of communication. NEF files contain the raw data and tags for the operations that have been carried out. Many operations NX does are not programmed into other programs, so how could they apply them? Eg. to read control point tags and properly implement them you need the algorithms in the NX software. And if Nikon gave the code to implement control point adjustments to Adobe, who then would ever buy NX? The NEF file does not contain a high res bitmap of the finished result; all the operations are carried out on the image when the NEF file is read.

 

What I think is inexcusable is that even features that _are_ supported in other programs are not correctly read and applied to the image.

<I> Many operations NX does are not programmed into other programs, so how could they

apply them?</I> <P>Actually they could be if Nikon allow you to export the processing

instructions

into the DNG format. As I wrote before, it is my opinion that this is part of a flawed set of

strategic decisions that Nikon Japan's executives have made. It doesn't just affect Adobe

Photoshop users, but also cataloging programs like iView Media Pro, FotoStation Pro,

Extensis Portfolio 8, and Canto Cumulous.

In an earlier reply....

"What I think is inexcusable is that even features that _are_ supported in other programs are not correctly read and applied to the image".

 

This is not completely true in as much as it does recognize and apply Nikon Capture adjustments when you open up a RAW NEF file in Capture NX.

 

My question is, why does every program for photographers have to give in, to the Adobe people?

 

I do use their products, CS2, Dreamweaver 8 and others, they are good programs, and I have no problem with them at all.

 

But why should Nikon, or any other camera maker or software program have to give Adobe their ideas and secrets?

I'll agree with some of the above posters tha NX gives a much better image straight off the bat. I have compared the NX version to the one ACR produces upon opening the images. NX is always better in terms of color and contrast. I have never been able to use ACR and get an image to look to look the same as it does in NX. I do all my major color and tone adjusments in NX and then bring it into CS2/3 for the rest of the work flow.

Every Nikon program is just an attempt of a novice. Photoshop CS2 is the king and by my opinion this is a big mistake of Nikon instead to make better firmware for Noise reduction of the sensors for example etc.Phtoshop is a product of many years from thousand of people and Nikon is too far. I am a Nikon owner from 70's and I feel sad when I buy a very

good lens like 18-200 VR and have the creeping problem. They should first fix problems like this and let Nikon capture etc. for later or never. Otherwise they will remain with the compact cameras customers only.

Well, Michael, in my experience I can get a better image out of NX easily than I can get out out of Photoshop (note I said "easily"). It simply is a better RAW converter for NEFs.

 

For many people, Photoshop is overkill. It's too cluttered with features that most photographers won't use. And there are so many ways of achieving the same outcome that many novices find it confusing.

 

Yes, there are things that Capture NX can't do. But the UPoint technology really is easy to use. Not as powerful as layers. But damn good.

That is what I say easier software for novices and less quality for the others. But the quality of a company like Nikon counts on Bodies, Lens etc. and not in photo software.SO I AM STEEL WAITING AN ANSWER FROM NIKON

HOW CAN I TAKE PHOTOS WITH TRIPOD IN AN ANGLE OF 60 deg. WITH MY 18-200VR

but they have not time YET. It would be easy to fit a fixing mechanism when I want to shoot like this, I mean not to use strips and funny ways like this, but they prefer NIKON NX. That is the reason I feel disappointed and sad.

It's a mistake to believe that NX is for novices because it gives a quality result without requiring excessive time and effort on every image. It is not a substitute for Photoshop, it's a specific tool for a specific purpose. I use both programs on almost every image I process. I am not a novice... t

Tom - I, too, really like the results that I get from NX. The fact that I can get what I need quickly and easily is a real plus. It doesn't do everything. But what it does do it does very well.

I find the Capture software practically useless for editing. The one thing that I do love is the

rectilinear correction for fisheye images. It's a great tool.

 

I do like the Capture Control software for firing the camera - it is especially helpful for

interior photography, which I shoot frequently. There are a few minor flaws, but in general it

is a huge improvement over shooting 4X5 Polaroid.

I find Capture NX saves me tons of time. I used to use Rawshooter and hated the way it reset all of the in-camera setting upon loading the NEF. I would spend ages trying to replicate what I had seen by fiddling with contrast and colour settings, and the result was never something I was overly happy with. With Capture NX, for example, if I set the saturation in-camera at high, the sharpness at +1, the colour mode at IIIA that is exactly how Capture loads it...so if I take the shot perfectly to begin with, I essentially convert it to TIFF and voila, it's done. I hate post-shot editing so I may be an anomoly, and I guess if you like to tinker with your images, perhaps Adobe or pther programs are more suited for you. Personally, the less time I spend on the computer, the more time I can shoot.