Can Capture NX2 do it all?

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I would save the time and just use CS4. It will now read .NEF files perfectly and is a hundred times more powerful than NX2.</p>

[jerry s]

<p>Like many others, I use Capture NX2 for most of my edits, though I still use Photoshop for those tasks which Capture NX2 can't handle. A couple of years back, I spent a rainy Sunday afternoon learning Capture NX, and have been using it as my primary editor since then. The U-Point technology lets me do most corrections more quickly than with PhotoShop. Again, for the really advanced stuff, or when I want to get very creative, PhotoShop still reigns, but for most simple tasks I prefer Capture NX2.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Thanks, everyone, for your truly enlightening responses. I think this has been as helpful as the user's manual! I must be doing something right with memory/cache settings because I have not experienced slowness that some of you wrote of. That's one thing I don't tolerate, so I would do whatever it takes to speed it up, including buying new hardware if necessary.</p>

<p>Thanks again...</p>

<p>Will</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>I would like to add two small points here.<br>

1. Just for adding"copyright" or text one need not go to a large and expensive program like CS3 or CS4. Free programs like Picasa ans Paint.net allow to add texts and frames/borders.<br>

2. Save a Jpeg in NX2 and open in CS3. I find the image in CS3 "sparkle" - as if like CS3 adding sparkling grain, which I find very ugly. Any one had such experience?</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"I would save the time and just use CS4. It will now read .NEF files perfectly and is a hundred times more powerful than NX2."</p>

<p>I actually use NX2 to save time. The U-Point technology is excellent for making selective edits. Much faster than working in Photoshop.</p>

[jphotog]

<p>I find NX2 excellent for 80-90% if what I do. Most things that I need PS3 for har already been mentioned, such as stitching, cloning, text, some printing etc.</p>

<p>For HDR I use Photomatix.</p>

<p>What has not been mentioned are all the great plug-ins that can be added to PS3/4 but not to NX2. I love my Silver Efex Pro. Why not available for NX2? They're both Nik?</p>

[indraneel]

<p>The vincent versace dvds are a great way to learn and find out what NX2 can do. Seeing them will greatly improve your workflow. You'll also need NIK color efex filters if you intend to use NX2 for the majority of your work. An older version of photoshop is also nice to have around for things that others have mentioned (cloning, borders etc). If you do HDR/panorama seriously, you're better off getting serious software for them (I use Artizen HDR and Panorama factory). I use the Nikon transfer/ViewNX/capture NX2 pipeline over lightroom, simply because of it's ease of use and accurate color rendition. But this is definitely not suited for high volume work. If you're doing weddings or events, get lightroom (and the NIK complete filters bundle). For fine art, stick to NX2.</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>No it can't do it all. but for sure its great doing what it does. learn to use it and you will se amazing results it requires lots of RAM and processor muscle that is why some ppl get frustrated when working on computers that dont met those requirements.<br>

I use it most of the time in conjunction with photoshop.</p>

[dewi]

<p>The prints on the Epson 4880, color calibrated monitor (Mac Cinema not iMac) system are different when printed from NX2 or CS4, at least for me. This is true printing from NEF's of TIFF's. Photoshop/Lightroom are closest to the screen's representation.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>DxO Optics Pro is the most amazing software for processing digital raw files, period.</p>

<p>But I also like NX2 and Photoshop CS4.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>My money is on Photoshop.</p>

<p>Once you get a bigger database under NX2 it is very slow and hard to work with.<br>

DxO is great in RAW, but only 25% of my work is post-processed from the RAW. For all the others, the jpeg output is good enough.</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>Dennis, could you explain how you get a bigger database that gets slow and hard to work with? I have thousands of files to access with NX2 and have never encountered that problem.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I found NX to be slow and not practical when dealing with 100-1000 of pictures from a session. I use Aperture as my digital management program and CS3 as my serious editing program. I would guess that one could name NX2 as an editor like CS3, but to me Aperture has already been the RAW interpreter and generates the next file when opening in CS3 so I am not sure if there would be an advantage at all with NX2 as a plug-in or external editor to Aperture. <br>

Having said that, I would be great if Nikon teamed up with Adobe and Apple to make the NX2 capabilities embedded in the two respective programs. This would be a very exciting development and push Nikon a bit higher on the curve as the best camera system out there. <br>

I suspect that there is a difference in performance speed between a PC and a MAC with NX2, but don't know that for sure.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>Be aware that Capture NX is not compatible with the new Apple OS, Snow Leopard (10.6).</p>

[robert gordon]

<p>No thing and no-one can do it all.</p>

[rjf]

<p>I've only actually used Capture NX2, but have some limited experience with PS. I beleive NX2 has everything you need if phylisophically, as a photographer, you practice doing the job with your camera, not relying on post processing to create an image. Capture has everything you need to create fabulous digital images...however, if your artistic goal is to create digital art by blending and melding diverse imagery, delving into digital effects and playing with reality, PS is the way to go.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>NX 2 works fine with Snow Leopard. I use it without a problem.</p>

[jensvind]

<p>NX2 is to me the most intuitive PP piece of software I have ever worked with. Combined with NIK Efex filters, all 52, I only need PS for correcting some of my super wide images that can't be corrected with the lens correcting tool (not to my satisfaction anyway) in NX2. The only disadvantage I see is the printing part that PS do better.</p>

[roypanos]

<p>Andre wrote:<br>

<em>"DxO Optics Pro is the most amazing software for processing digital raw files, period."</em><br>

I have only used the DxO 5 software for the evaluation period, although I have just downloaded v6 to try. I have been using NX2 for nearly a year though. Both applications have rather odd user interfaces I think. Even now I find NX2 cumbersome although the quality of the conversions is excellent.</p>

<p>The biggest difference I've noticed between them - or at least the thing that defines the difference for me - is that DxO includes a mapped lens distortion feature (assuming your body and lenses are in the fairly extensive database; most of mine are). I can't imagine why Nikon haven't incorporated this - at least for Nikkor lenses. It would seem to be a huge marketing advantage. I particularly like the DxO volume anamorphosis correction for ultra wides. Great lens though it is the non-linear smearing effect of the 14 - 24 2.8 @ 14mm really annoys me. I seem to be entirely alone in this however!</p>

<p>NX2 is pretty buggy. There are too many bugs to list but it seems to have some difficulty meeting Windows window handing parameters. Sometimes the whole application gets stuck in position (down) and only exiting and relaunching will fix it. Sometimes when you launch it from a file using "open with", even from ViewNX, the thing either takes ages to open (unpredictably) or else never finishes opening the file. And if I "check for updates" from the application's own menu it has always told me that no updates were available. Immediately checking the website revealed an update. How hard is it to get this sort of thing right? I speak as someone who made a living implementing and testing custom software for a good many years.</p>

<p>If I could justify it I'd have both DxO and NX2. If NX2 incorporated the lens distortion data DxO would be redundant - for me.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>I use NX2 alongside Photo Mechanic the latter being a contact sheet and a simple way to input captions and keywords. Both work together very well.<br>

Many people have posted about layers and "creative" tools in PS which I don't need as I am a die hard film fan and don't use digital a great deal. However, NX2 is very good for scanned E6 120 format and the healing tool is just what is needed to tidy up small spots, hairs, and even the odd lamp post! <br>

Compared to PS I think that I am right in saying that it uses less memory and hard drive space also. I certainly found it so even though I have 2 hard drives and 3GB plus memory.<br>

Stick with it, it is easier than PS. </p>

 

[rjm photo]

<p>I'm with Julian....NX2 won't print a true borderless print on my Epson 2400. I have to save and print in Picassa. Although I've upgraded to NX2 several months ago (to tie in with D700 purchase) from NX, I have not yet figured out how to put a thin border around the image....for this I use PS or Picassa. Cloning function in PS is easier for me.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I started relatively recently and as such am comfortable with NX2 which is what I learned on. I have also installed the Nikon Transfer - ViewNX - NX2 trio which works well for my needs.</p>

<p>The only thing I wish it had was a plug-in for borders and watermarks/signatures. I know other programs can do this but an integrated solution would be nice. Otherwise I'm happy.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>DxO is great in RAW, but only 25% of my work is post-processed from the RAW.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I do use RAW a lot, but another thing to watch for with DxO is whether it supports the files from the camera one is using. Some versions do not, so, if you are planning to use DxO, check the specs to be sure you are covered.</p>

<p>As someone said, no one software does it all.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>