NEF to JPG: ViewNX or CaptureNX2?

[sem_svizec]

<p>Both Nikon converters have the advantage of starting from the in-camera settings, but... I tend to shoot casual stuff JPG and only more demanding lightning NEF, so I don't find in-camera settings a matter of great importance.<br>

And regarding these images with difficult lightning, recorded with some recoverable overexposure (with the dynamic range too high for a successful JPG conversion) that often need a lot of ADL-like shadows lifting, ViewNX does not shine in conversion because it does not allow enough negative exposure compensation: the limit is -2 but I'd need -3 or even -4. So one needs to do pseudo-HDR to process such images; also decreasing contrast does not help. DxO Optics Pro allows more EC and handles such images in a single conversion. However, for some images the "highlights protection" slider in ViewNX works better than negative EC, and this one is lacking in DxO OP. Don't know but think that CNX2 is similar to ViewNX but that LR has probably the most powerful controls for this purpose.<br>

Has anyone examined which converter is best at restoring partially blown highlights (one or two channels blown)?</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I went through this too. NX2 is a more complete, Nikon centric, RAW converter. But its a pig to use.</p>

<p>I do this: I convert RAW to TIFF in NX2, then import the TIFFs into Breezebrowser Pro to tweak and convert to high res JPEGs and low res, web use, JPEGS. So I end up with three folders for each shoot. Breezebrowser Pro does fast batch processing in a snap. Total investment in software is only a couple of hundred $. Both run fine on a modest laptop. Who needs a quad processor mainframe capable PC.? I've got better things to spend my money on...like lenses.</p>

<p>I simply refuse to invest in Adobe stuff. One, because its just plain too expensive, and too hard to learn. Two, it's proprietary and I resent their licensing regime. And three, I want to spend my time shooting and not playing graphic artist on my PC. My view also is that if you have to spend an hour in PS fixing up an image, then you are a crappy shooter in the first place. One should get it almost right the first time on location.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"I'd love to know why so many people bemoan how slow or sluggish Capture NX is?<br>

I don't find this to be the case at all."</p>

<p>Capture NX 2 is slow on my wife's 4.5 year old computer, but it's pretty snappy on our 1.5 year old dula core PC. Non-destructive edits require serious processing power. Don't skimp and you'll probably find performance to be acceptable.</p>

[zoid]

<p><em>Nikon software is the only software out there that will read the settings you made in your camera at the time of image capture--except for one exception, white balance. So if you want to preserve this info and have it represetned in your processed JPEGs you have to convert them with Nikon software.</em></p>

<p>This is not correct. I use GIMP with the GIMP RAW/NEF converter and it saves all of my D100 camera data in the JPEG.<br>

All of it.<br>

And GIMP is free software.</p>

[fast_primes]

<p>I would like to add a fundamental question--will ViewNX apply lens specific corrections (distortion, fall off, chromatic aberrations, etc) to derived jpeg/jpg files or must one go to CaptureNX to do that?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'This is not correct. I use GIMP with the GIMP RAW/NEF converter and it saves all of my D100 camera data in the JPEG.'</p>

<p>Joseph is quite correct. Most Nikon camera settings (e.g. picture controls) are ignored by most 3rd party converters, including UFRaw, the usual GIMP converter. For example, if you shoot a black & white NEF on a camera that supports this mode, UFRaw will by default process it in colour like any other image. A nikon converter will recognise the b&w mode, though you can choose to switch back to colour if you prefer. A small number of niche 3rd party converters use the Nikon libraries and can therefore access this data, but this route wouldn't be possible for Free Software like UFRaw, even if the developers were interested in supporting Nikon camera settings, as the libraries are not available under a FOSS license. Reverse engineering would be another possibility (as was done for the basic raw format and for encrypted white balance data), but as far as I know, nobody in the free software community has bothered to do this.</p>

<p>Arguably more importantly, 3rd party converters also can't take advantage of Nikon's careful colour profiling of each camera. UFRaw attempts to deal with this using some working ICM profiles extracted from the profile directories of Nikon converters, but in fact Nikon converters do not use a single profile for each camera under all conditions (multiple working profiles, each of which gives a different result when applied, seem to be generated as required by Nikon software, presumably from complete profile data for each camera stored in some form that's not directly accessible by the user). This isn't just a theoretical issue - try matching the colours from a Nikon conversion of a NEF containing some bright prmary colours or subtle skin tones with a UFRaw conversion and you'll see what I mean.</p>

[curt wiler]

<blockquote>

<p>... the GIMP RAW/NEF converter ... saves all of my D100 camera data in the JPEG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it preserves the EXIF metadata. All converters that I know of do this either internally or as a sidecar file. But this is not the same as the encrypted data used to control the RAW conversion.</p>

[kevin_peng1]

<p>This is a very informative discussion. thank you! I will try both ViewNX and CaptureNX2.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Regarding the comments about how slow and sluggish Nikon Capture is, I agree with Robert. I do not find that to be the case on my pc which is now three years old. One way to dramatically improve the performance of Capture NX2 and View NX, is to set the Cache settings in each software for optimal perfomance. This has to be done in accordance to what hardware (hard drives) and software you have loaded on your pc.<br>

For Capture NX2, there is browsing cache and editing cache. Editing cache allows for faster loading of images previously opened. I select Use Image Cache, in Edit, Preferences. Why? It speeds up acces to my images previously opened. I also select Cache Files Saved within the editor for the same reason.<br>

Cache location ideally should be a separate hard drive, internal or external. The faster that drive operates, the faster Capture NX2 will operate. The default space for cache is only 2GB!! So if you have an extra hard drive available for cache use it and make sure there is no check mark in the Limit Cache Size box. <br>

Every so often you might have to go in and clear out cache.<br>

The last thing you want to do is to have your C drive doing it all unless it is only 20% full. <br>

Joe Smith </p>

 

[thom_hayes]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657427">fast primes</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Aug 25, 2009; 08:48 p.m.</p>

 

<p>I would like to add a fundamental question--will ViewNX apply lens specific corrections (distortion, fall off, chromatic aberrations, etc) to derived jpeg/jpg files or must one go to CaptureNX to do that?</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm real curious about this as well...and haven't found the answer yet.</p>

<p>Can anyone confirm this, one way or the other?</p>

<p>Thom</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

 

 

 

</blockquote>