RAW on CaptureNX and Adobe LR. Combined?

[c._f.]

<p>Hi folks, need help from digital gurus.<br>

Few weeks ago, I began shooting RAW (some are probably saying - <em>finally)</em> but got hit with a little puzzle.<br>

Using Lightroom, it obviously doesn't read exact specs I have in-camera so it gives me raw, ugly looking file. Now, changing camera profile does the job <em>to a degree</em> but it isn't what I'm getting in camera especially when I shoot raw/jpg and compare the two. So I have to spend lots of time processing the images.<br>

Using CaptureNX, I get the image I want and it works great but when it comes to batch work (like LR) Capture is slow and in my opinion sux.<br>

SO, is there a way for me to <em>somehow</em> combine LR workflow while getting Capture results? Or should I go back to my comfort box and shoot jpgs , OR buy back my bronica and get back to film :)<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Adam</p>

[howard_m]

<p>if your in-camera jpg settings are nominal, then you should be able to get quite close but it's not going to be identical to NX2 (oh how we all wish).</p>

<p>you can make a custom camera profile using the adobe dng profile editor or use the new Xrite Passport system or just use NX2, process them to TIFF and then import the TIFFs into LR.</p>

[c._f.]

<p>Howard, thanks for feedback.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>oh how we all wish</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can say that again :)<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p>Adam</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Nope. Nothing beats Nikon's own software when processing it's native RAW format.</p>

<p>Still not sure why so many talk about how slow NX is.<br>

I'm running a 3 Gig processor (PC) w/ 4 gig RAM..No sweat at all.<br>

What is not so good is MS architecture blows when it comes to efficient use of memory and release of memory when NOT being used..ya; my next machine WILL be a Mac.</p>

<p>Process in NX..export as a TIFF...That's precisely how I do it and have no probs.</p>

<p>Ya, I wish NIK software would make an all in one processor/editor...Maybe someday.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>I'd just like NX2 to output DNG so I could bypass the whole TIFF aspect.</p>

[c._f.]

<p>Kevin</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Still not sure why so many talk about how slow NX is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The computer and software its self runs fine, what I like about LR is the filmstrip that allows me to go from one image to another in an instant that is something that either Capture doesn't have OR I don't know how to get up (hence my question here).</p>

<p>Adam</p>

 

[kevin_delson]

<p>Sure it does.<br>

On the left side of the NX workspace.."File Browser"<br>

Instead of a filmstrip layout, it is arranged as a vertical strip.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>If you try running NX or NX2 on a five-year-old computer, it's going to run slow. I've got NX2 on a 2.5 gigahertz Intel processor with six gigs of memory and speed isn't a problem. And my computers isn't anywhere near state of the art or top of the line. If you are shooting raw, using anything but NX or NX 2 is, IMO, a compromise of the image. Ther programs were designed to get the most out of Nikon camera digital files..</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>Hummmmm..... So, you prefer the way NX2 renders your NEF files because NX2 reads the camera settings. So, why not just go back to shooting jpg? :-) Not trying to be a smart..., honest.</p>

<p> </p>

[c._f.]

<blockquote>

<p>Hummmmm..... So, you prefer the way NX2 renders your NEF files because NX2 reads the camera settings. So, why not just go back to shooting jpg? :-) Not trying to be a smart..., honest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Douglas,<br>

I'm experimenting with power of raw files. I know what negatives can do, since back in the day did develop them for little while and in class. But dealing with negatives and raw files on professional bases is something I never really did. Thus I just wanted to see if it is something for me.</p>

<p>Everyone,<br>

Thank you for kind responses, I'll play around with some ideas and see how it works out. :)</p>

<p><strong>thank you all </strong></p>

<p>Adam</p>

 

[kevin_delson]

<p>It's not a question of "how" NX renders, though it does do a great job, it's the fact that NX interprets the data and instruction sets with far more accuracy than other programs when working in Nikon's native format.<br>

This allows us much more control when working in the *.nef file format.</p>

<p>I love Adobe PS, but it doesn't hold a candle to NX in the conversion process. (NEF Only) </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So, why not just go back to shooting jpg?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ummm, because some ppl know the benefits of shooting in the RAW file format? Hmmmm?</p>

[sam_motskin]

<p>I use ViewNX to convert to TIFF and then process in ACR (the same engine as LR)</p>

[walterh]

<p>If you like the results from NX2 go and get a paper and a pencil and calculate how long it takes to process say 1000 images and guess how long it takes YOU to learn to get comparable result from Adobe camera raw plugin in Lightroom. That will give you the answer. I guess most people understimate the time required for learning and overestimate the time required for a fast computer to do a batch job. You are talking weeks for learning and hours for processing here.</p>

<p>Not that I would be an advocate for NX2; I do most PP in Adobe myself and only occasionally use NX2 if this looks more promising. If you got a working setup use it and do not try to "fix" it :-P</p>

<p>If you have a decent operating system and at least 3 Gbyte of memory you can practice Adobe camera raw settings (you can save your custom settings for most shooting situations and apply these to a big batch of files in ACR) while you batch process in NX2 in the background. I am not kidding: Moving sliders left and right does not take a lot of processor load while NX2 does its job on the same computer. This way with time you get the best of both worlds. Just a thought :-)</p>

<p>And a PS: Often Adobe ACR + PS will give me better results than NX2 especially if I need a lot of highlight recovery and need to evaluate settings e.g. for sharpening or noise removal in real time. These are both weak points of NX2.</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I process my NEF images in NX2 on my four year old pc with 4GB of Ram. I do not find it to be that slow. Make sure you fully understand how to set the two cache settings on NX2 given the hard drive(s) on your pc to get optimal performance. I cannot imagine going back to shooting jpegs. I did it for one day--my first day of shooting digitally.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[andrew_mcdonald1]

<p>I'm in the process of creating a small program that solves this problem.<br>

I run it as the external editor in Lightroom and it takes the edit copy file name and works out the original NEF name then opens Capture NX with that NEF. I then process in NX and save the TIFF over the edit version that Lightroom created.<br>

The downsides of this are that the edited copy must reside in the same folder as the NEF and that I (currently) have to work out where to save the TIFF in Capture to get it over the top of the Lightroom file.<br>

The advantages are that I get to use Lightroom's cataloguing and stacking, Nikon's RAW conversion and then end up back in Lightroom to output the resultant TIFF.<br>

There are some other people who've developed similar things and I think that there is one Lightroom plug-in that also allows this.<br>

Andy</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>C.F -- did not mean to offend.</p>

<p>Kevin -- did you not notice the smiley? Hmmmmm? ;-)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Nikon's ViewNX is no Lightroom, but it's a better browser than the one built in to NX2 (if you have both installed, opening an image in Capture is just a right-click menu selection away from browsing it in View). Have you tired View as a front-end to Capture?</p>

[c._f.]

<p><strong>Douglass Lee</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>C.F -- did not mean to offend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who said I am/was offended. I'm just looking for means not to sit in front of computer for HOURS yet obtain results that camera CAN POTENTIALLY put out :)<br>

<strong>Andrew McDonald</strong><br>

I'd be interested to learn more about that program.<br>

<strong>Richard Williams</strong><br>

No I haven't but it is an interesting idea, will try...<br>

<em><strong>Clarification</strong> </em> <br>

the program and computer runs fast, the slow part is that in LR I find that any modification can be done faster and going from one image to the other is also faster vs Capture NX2 (that is the version I have - sorry i thought it was 1 at first) where I feel approach is more individualized like in PS.<br>

I actually have some down time from work so I'll be trying Bible Pro and DXO Optics. Any one know anything good or bad about these two? I guess this should have been placed in Digital categories :) sorry Mods :)<br>

Folks, thank you all who responded and for your 411 :)<br>

Adam</p>

<p> </p>

[gwpics]

<p>Try combining NX2 with P<a href="http://www.camerabits.com">hoto Mechanic</a> and then you are cooking!</p>

[c._f.]

<blockquote>

<p>Try combining NX2 with P<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.camerabits.com/" target="_blank">hoto Mechanic</a> and then you are cooking!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Slowly but surely I'm getting there.<br>

Thanks Gerry.</p>

<p>Adam</p>