NX2-->NEF-->Tiff-->LR2

[greg_lisi]

<p>Hi all,<br>

Just a quick question regarding a workflow technique. D700 shooting raw (14bit) to NX2 NEF converting to tiff then going to LR2 for edits vs. doing the NEF edits in NX2. Woud there be an IQ loss going the tiff to LR2 route? Thanks.</p>

[976photo]

<p>TIF is a lossless file format, there's not file data lost when you save, thus there should be no loss in image quality. JPEG is the file format that loses data with each save.</p>

<p>Can you not open up the RAW file and convert it to TIF in LR2?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>How about doing the NEF edits in LR2? (or better yet, LR3. Check out the noise reduction in LR3, you'll be sold).</p>

<p>Seriously, although, as Luc points out, TIF is a lossless format, it's still a "cooked" format. To get from NEF to TIFF, NX2 does Bayer deconvolution, color conversion, sharpening, and noise reduction. Even at the standard settings, these things happen. LR does, in my opinion, all four of those things better. Especially sharpening, which it does by deconvolution. Much less "damage" to the image, much less visible effects for the same "sharpness". The problem with things like color, noise, and sharpening, is that once you do them with low quality algorithms, it's difficult to go back and undo that so you can try a better algorithm.</p>

<p>It's like baking a cake. You look at a failed cake and realize that it turned out wrong because you didn't use enough baking powder. But you can't go back and add baking powder to a baked cake, nor can you separate the cake back into your flour, eggs, water, butter, etc. to try again. You can only bake once, so do it in the best kitchen you can get into...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>I was thinking the same thing, as I get ready to adjust my workflow.</p>

<p>Have you really compared the noise reduction between LR2 and 3? Because LR2's was very good imho, for the limited things I used it for. You don't have a sample or link to one, do you?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>I was thinking the same thing, as I get ready to adjust my workflow.</p>

<p>Have you really compared the noise reduction between LR2 and 3? Because LR2's was very good imho, for the limited things I used it for. You don't have a sample or link to one, do you?</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>I just import my RAW files to LR3 and convert to DNG during the import. Much smaller file and no loss in quality. LR3 does 98% of the post-processing I ever need, but I can pull the DNG into Photoshop directly if I need layers for anything.</p>

<p>And yes, LR3 blows the doors off LR2 for noise reduction. It's a completely new algorithm. You can see samples in the Leica User Forum of high ISO M9 files brought back to D700-like files with LR3.</p>

[samoksner]

<p>Lightroom suports your RAW D700 files, so why go through both programs. Are you just converting the images in NX2 or actually processing them? </p>

<p>Are you happy with the workflow within NX2 and the image quality?</p>

<p>Are you doing any processing in Lightroom? If so, you're editing in 2 programs that are very similar in their capabilities, it seems a bit redundant. Are you using Lighroom to archive and manage files?</p>

<p>Lightroom is a very capable program and I've never been displeased with the image quality I could get out of it. And now with Lightroom 3, it's that much easier and the image quality is even better. </p>

<p>I don't mean to sell you on lightroom, but it seems to me like you're stepping out of honda accord to get into a toyota camry.... if you get the analogy. </p>

<p>Here is what I would do (and this is what I do actually), I import everything into Lightroom 3 (but 2 works fine) and convert all my RAW files (from many different cameras, Nikon D40, D300, D200, D700, Canon Xti, 5D MKII) and convert them all to DNG (Digital NeGative) this is a non propriety RAW format. So that in 20 years, I'll still be able to read my RAW files. <br>

I then do my selects in Lightroom with colors and stars and then edit my selects and export as a Web file for my blog, upload to Flickr, or export a full size Tiff or Jpg for the client.<br>

Converting to DNG has no IQ loss whatsoever (not a little, not a lot... NONE) and like that, I can work with RAW files until I'm ready to export, and like that, I only really compress and reduce an image once: at the very end. </p>

<p>What is NX2 doing for you that Lightroom can't? that should be the question it seems. </p>

[samoksner]

<p>While I haven't conpared Noise reduction in LR3 vs. LR2, I've found that I'm going back to old files are rediting them in LR3, that should be a pretty good indication at the superiority of the noise reduction. I use to bring files into photoshop just for noise reduction, not anymore.</p>

[greg_lisi]

<p>What is NX2 doing for you that Lightroom can't? that should be the question it seems.<br>

Thanks Sam for your input. I've been reading were some users made comparisons (LR2/3 vs. NX2) and the results just seem to be subjective (IMO). One might say that NX2 does a better job via profiles, presets, colors, sharpening, etc. Then again, others will contest that they can find no difference working LR2/3 and getting similar results. I don't have a PC platform with gozillion GB's of memory that editing in NX2 seems to shine, so I've been converting to tiff in NX2 then using LR2 to do my edits. Frankly, I would just rather go with your suggested workflow using DNG's in LR3 and be done with it. My point in this thread was to try and get a handle (some enlightenment) on Light Room vs. NX2 conversion and IQ degradation before edits.</p>

 

[tom_mann1]

<p>Since the intro of the newest version of ACR, the clear advantage in initial image quality that NX2 used to offer seems to be greatly reduced. Now, there seems to be much less difference in de-mosiacing, and initial image quality between the two programs.</p>

<p>However, NX2 still does things that LR3 can't directly do, and some things it does much better / more easily. For example, NX2 has the U-point technique for targeted adjustments which I find to be vastly easier to use, more accurate (spatially), controllable, and more versatile than the targeted adjustments that are starting to be offered in ACR.</p>

<p>That being said, I'm finding that since the release of CS5 and LR3, I'm using NX2 less and less as my intake step. When I want to use NX2-like targeted adjustments, I run Viveza from inside of PS after ingesting the NEF file in ACR (either PS or LR or Bridge) and making initial adjustments there.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I agree that the one thing NX2 has that LR2 and LR3 does not have is Contol Points or U point technology. However, if you buy the Nik Vivesa plug in for LR2 or LR3, you can get Control Points and U point technology and then there should be no reason to process first in NX2. I have seen LR3 with Nik Vivesa demonstrated by a Beta tester and together they make a powerful package, and this comes from a dedicated NX2 user. If I ever go to LR3, I will get Nik Vivesa too.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@JS - Interesting thought about using Viveza in LR instead of PS (as I do). I suspect that if I had Viveza available for use in both programs, my guess is that I would sometimes use it in LR, but more often use it in PS because I frequently need the features of PS, so I'm often in that program anyway.</p>

<p>I only own Viveza (and Color Efx Pro) for PS, not for LR. I would like to try the LR versions. I just did a quick look around the NIK site and saw only a couple of oblique references to the LR versions. Do you know where / how to get them? Are they still in beta?</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[wade_roth]

It looks like the same install works for both PS and LR.

 

http://www.niksoftware.com/viveza/usa/entry.php?view=intro/viveza2_features.shtml#systemrequirements

 

--Wade

[joseph_smith3]

<p><a href="http://www.niksoftware.com/viveza/usa/entry.php?view=intro/viveza_announcement.shtml">http://www.niksoftware.com/viveza/usa/entry.php?view=intro/viveza_announcement.shtml</a><br>

Tom, for this link ought to answer your issue about Vivesa for LR. Notice that the current product is Vivesa 2. Joe Smith</p>