Using Nikon Capture NX-2 and Lightroom 2 together?

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Anyone using Nikon NX-2 and Lightroom 2 together? I want to open Raw NEF in NX and then move photos into Lightroom to work with them. Want some Ideas on what is worth doing in NX before moving files into Lightroom and what file type to convert to for exporting to Lightroom 2?</p>

[larry_warfield]

<p>Lightroom won't see the edits you make to the Raw (NEF) file. I do trivial edits in Lightroom only. More substantial edits I do in Capture NX2 and then import the results as a TIF file back into LR.</p>

<p>I don't do an Edit in...because that makes another copy of the file. Instead, I right click & do Show in Explorer and edit from there.</p>

<p>It's suboptimal, but it works. I wish Nikon & Adobe played better with each other. :-(</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I don't use them together because I think it's unnecessary extra work (and cost). I don't think NX can do better than LR for adjustments, corrections, and output options. With the quality of LR's RAW engine, the only advantage I see to using NX would be the application of in-camera settings to the RAW/NEF file.</p>

<p>Although LR only picks up the NEF White Balance setting automatically, the current version of LR has custom camera profiles that auto-detect the camera model from exif data of supported cameras (many camera brands and models - not just Nikon), and can apply one of several camera profiles to an image from a drop-down menu with a single click (Develop Module/Camera Calibration/Profile). This essentially duplicates most common in-camera adjustment settings that NX would pick up and apply to a RAW/NEF file. Of course, you can always apply your own camera calibration settings in LR to suit. So for me, NX doesn't really do anything useful that LR doesn't, and LR does plenty that NX can't. That's just for me, though. YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

[raysgallery]

<p>I think that NX will out do LR any day. For me, NX does a better job of batch processing NEF files. I batch to tiffs and then import them into LR. As for as editing individual photos, for me, I can edit them much faster in NX. It's not that NX is faster than LR, it's just much easier for me to get what I want in NX than it is in LR. You half to save to TIFFs because Adobe programs throws out all of your edits if you try to import the NEF files. I guess Adobe doesn't like the competition. </p>

<p>You have to import your photos into LR from somewhere. In NX, just save your photos to a file in the TIFF format. Then when you import your photos into LR, it won't throw out all of the edits you made in NX.</p>

<p>I think if you own a Nikon, NX is worth having. I save a lot more time in processing than I lose in doing one extra import.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Thanks I have both and I agree its a pity the lack of third party support in lightroom for the major manufactures raw file formats, but I guess they don't exactly get the source code from Nikon.<br>

I suspect a lot of third party add ones will eventually end up in Lightroom format just like Photoshop CS has plugins. Thanks for the tips.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>Work the Raw in NX, then save with a new name as a NEF and import that into LR. Or try the same but save in NX as a tif, or psd. I have quit using NX because I am not buying software now (I'm paying the mortgage instead) and NXv1.whatever will not see my D700 NEFs. It's LR and PSCS3 for now... t</p>

 

[dansutton]

<p>to harvey, LR does support NEF files, it just doesn't seem to read the sidecar XMP files, although now i'm not so sure that NX makes XMP files. Either way, i want to post two photos of NEF renderings in LR and NX. These are as imported, and then chopped down to 700px wide at 72dpi here on the web. that is the only editing aside from what the programs will have done initially. they are shot at f/9 1/400s at 6400ISO and just thought they were very descriptive of the image renderings these two products give to files.</p><div></div>

[dansutton]

<p>and here is the LR imported version</p><div></div>

[dansutton]

<p>i just thought that this was a stark contrast. i no longer use LR to work on my files, and intend to purchase NX as soon as my free trial expires in 50 or so days. </p>

[larry_warfield]

<blockquote>

<p>LR does support NEF files, it just doesn't seem to read the sidecar XMP files, although now i'm not so sure that NX makes XMP files.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Nikon Capture NX-2 is the villian here. Capture NX-2 doesn't write sidecar XMP files. It puts the edit history in the NEF file. Lightroom (& basically everything else) doesn't know how to handle that. </p>

<p>Besides Nikon knowing how to interpret their RAW files and doing better rendering, I just find the masking and color selection more intuitive and easier to use in Capture NX-2. Lightroom 2 just seems a little less friendly.<br>

</p>

<p>If you like Capture NX, check out the Nik Color Efx filters you can add in. Post processing for some photos is just 5-6 clicks and I'm done. In Photoshop, I would still be painting the mask. (That being said, there are just some things that must be done in Photoshop).</p>

 

[dansutton]

<p>ok. i thought i didn't remember seeing those xmp sidecar files. but what threw me is that ACR didn't seem to pick up on the lightroom edits, and i think this is because lightroom stores all of your edits in a central database, whereas ACR writes sidecar XMP files. now am i on the right track?</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>My experience with the early NX is that it is great for 1 file at a time. If you need more than six files to look different from the in camera capture, but you want all of them to look the same globally, you'd better have an hour or two to make that happen in NX. In Lightroom, I can "correct" a hundred files in the same amount of time, plus keyword them, and output them as web ready files and print resolution in less time than it takes me to re-interpret 6 files in NX.</p>

<p>When I get another $300 to burn, I will get NX2 (it will probably be NX3 by then). Otherwise, I'm still learning how to tweak Lightroom and it's working great. It is not simple but it's worth it... t</p>

[raysgallery]

<p>My experience with the early NX is that it is great for 1 file at a time.</p>

<p>There wasn't a lightroom in the early version of NX. Maybe you should try the lastest version before running it in the ground.</p>

[michael_rubin1]

<p>Hi there,<br>

I've read some speculative and unfortunately misinformation in this thread. Due to confidentiality agreements the most I can say is that the support of Picture Controls in LR is no accident.<br>

As far as Capture NX 2, it has improved in functionality and we are working on batch functions as I type this.<br>

I would recommend you try Nikon ViewNX--a no-charge RAW processor and browser which allows you to make mass changes in RAW to hundreds of images and features 90% of Capture NX 2 controls and 100% of in-camera settings. The engine is the same as Capture NX 2. Further it can make the changes (including XMP inside the NEF) and output JPEG & TIF faster than ANY other RAW processor from start to finish (finish being 16 bit TIFFs or 8 bit TIFF or JPEG files).<br>

Best,<br>

Michael<br>

mrubin@nikon.net<br>

P.S. The non-destructive selective editing and masking of NX 2 is well worth the price.</p>

<p> </p>

[twmeyer]

<p>That's great, Michael... how about a link?... t</p>

[raysgallery]

<p>Sorry Tom, photonet's spam filters wouldn't let me post Nikon's link. I guess you will have to google the words "Nikon software" on your own.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>duh. Got it.</p>

<p>Converted 40 D700 NEFS to 604pxl long dim jpgs in 2 min 45 sec. Not bad, if you nailed the WB, and exposure, etc, in camera. But the adjustment sliders are just so reluctant to move and there's no Saturation slider in Quick Adjust.</p>

<p>I got excited for a minute, cause it didn't mess with my D700 in camera duotone settings, but as soon as I hit "Picture Control" to look for saturation adjustment, it reverted to color. sigh.</p>

<p>But, it <em>is</em> free... t</p>

[raysgallery]

<p>The topic was on NX 2.</p>

[richard_selby]

<p>I really like LR however the colors aren't as accurate as NX2 even with the newest camera profiles. LR is so fast and so easy to work in it's a shame Nikon won't give up the algorithms so third party developers can write software that is more concise. One thing I really like about NX2 is the U-Point technology and the fact I can paint and enhance particular details with more simplified control than LR. Yes I realize LR has a myriad of controls and I find myself getting lost trying to sort out exactly what I 'm trying to achieve. NX2 simplifies my process so much. To be fair, maybe I need a better understanding of LR. I use both together quite often with excellent results. The U-Point technology in NX2 is unbelievably fast for touching up skies and backgrounds. The zoom in LR is blazingly fast compared to NX2. I've tried to exploit the best features of each and use them to my advantage, I like using both programs together for now.<br>

IMHO,</p>

<p>Richard</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>The color calibration issue is, for me, workable. What NX2 still does that LR2 doesn't is the U-Point edits. I experimented with Viveza and NX2 as external editors and was pretty pleased. Viveza costs more than smartly-shopped NX2, so I will probably go with NX2 when the trials expire.</p>