Nikon NX2 or Photoshop Elements for RAW

[photo5]

<p>Nothing has surpassed NX2 for Nikon NEF conversions so far. I convert in NX2 and then open in Photoshop CS3 for all my image editing.</p>

[photo_pig]

<p>Hi Stan, this is my first contribution to a forum.. yey.<br>

I'm an IT consultant so I'll give you some advice (for what its worth)... any serious graphic app is going to need reasonable computing power. In this respect, computing power is a combination of RAM size and speed, hard drive capacity and speed, processor power and GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) power. 1GB of RAM ain't going to be enough, you want to get as much as you're system can use. If you are running anything less than Win 7 or a 64 bit operating system, you will not benefit from any more than 3GB. This is because these O/S's can't utilise more than 3.5GB. Having said this, if you're GPU uses shared memory then go for the 4GB RAM.<br>

As for the choice between NX2 and Photoshop, I once agonised over this. I think it's really about personal preference, what you find you're most comfortable working with. In the end I wound up using NX2. It does everything I want, I found it easier than Photoshop or Lightroom (it's different to these, so if you're used to them, NX2 can be a challenge) and to me the end result looks great.<br>

What I did was play around with all of them for a while. There are some great free online resources. The trick is to follow a "work flow" on you're own subjects.<br>

As for NX2 performance, it's not that it's that much less stable or slower than the Adobe products, it's that there is much more support for the later. This makes it easier to resolve any issues you might have, and Adobe releases more bug fixes and patches. It took me a bit of effort to get NX2 running nice and fast.<br>

Once you've sorted out you're RAM, there are a couple of things you should do for NX2;<br>

1. Update you're drivers<br>

2. Load the latest MS Visual C+++ Redistributable<br>

Anyway, try them all out and go with what you're comfortable with.<br>

Cheers</p>

[western_isles]

<p>I use MX 2 and Photo Mechanic the latter as a contact sheet.<br>

I have found that NX is better if you have a large ram and a second drive. I have 2.7mb of ram available after everything is loaded. The second drive I use as a cache and it means that NX runs faster and better. Try using Ramrush, its free, and it will give you more memory to work with.<br>

I have used Elements but no longer. I find that NX is better for tidying up scanned transparencies and is easier to use compared to other products.<br>

Tried using Lightroom but it did not work very well for me and Photoshop is horribly expensive and uses lots of disk space. </p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>I also hear good things about Lightzone (Lightzone, not Lightroom). It's fast, intuitive and free. Anybody here use it?</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>I know. I know. Lightzone isn't free. In fact, it's more expensive than NX2, but it is fast and easy to use.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>If you do lots of images, I would recommend one of the workflow programs (Aperture or Lightroom) and use Photoshop as an elegant plug-in to those programs. <br>

While I have heard tell that NX is the best, I would like to see a comparison of NEF file output between an NX user and an Aperture/Lightroom user and see if an impartial jury could tell the difference in which software processed the pictures. I suspect that comparison would reveal NO difference.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, if I open the same NEF in Aperture 2 and in NX2, this is what I get (nothing applied, just as the images are opened):</p><div></div>

[lesterphoto]

<p>Todd Owyoung has a nice article comparing NX2 and Lightroom 3.<br /> Check it out at: http://ishootshows.com/</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>I just received a quote to go from 1.0gb to 4.0 gb. $149.00. Pretty cheap IMHO to triple my speed. I say triple because it's a 32 bit system.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>jeez that sounds really steep to me... i think you can lookup what module you PC takes online, and then order it or go to a big-box retailer in your area... except for notebooks/netbooks, RAM upgrades can usually be accomplished w/o even a screwdriver...<br>

after you've taken care of the memory thing, your next step/stop should be in the hard drive dept... dunno how much free space you have, but RAW images are large, and editing makes 'em even larger... look at what you have and what you're trying to do. maybe an external drive will let you keep your main HDD less cluttered.<br>

and when you have some elbow room, keep that puppy defragmented... it won't help system performance if your image file (and assorted temp files) is spread around your disk in 50 little pieces. defrag will coalesce the free space into nice, big chunks that can be read and written to in a hurry.</p>

[douglas lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, if I open the same NEF in Aperture 2 and in NX2, this is what I get (nothing applied, just as the images are opened):</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, you know that is not true. NX2 applies the in-camera settings. :-) Nice try, though.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Douglas, you can say that José is cheating, but you could also argue that Capture NX does offer an advantage there... Nothing applied, meaning: as user I had to do nothing except open the file. And then it is a completely valid comparison again.</p>

<p>Stan, $149 for 3GB RAM is quite a lot. I paid €50 for 4GB a few months ago, and prices have been reasonably stable. Could you post the full product name, product number etc. of your machine? There may possibly be benefits to running 2x2GB rather than 1x2 and 1x1, despite the fact that a 32-bits OS will not use all of it. But at the least, we could help try to find a cheaper option. The other thing is, if the deal really is cheap at 150, then maybe your PC has reached an age where investing in it may be a very unwise idea (though the 320GB HDD makes me believe otherwise)... Either way, worth checking a bit further than HP's own sales.<br>

(and they quote for 3GB, but you already have got 1GB installed - so why not get 2GB extra if you want to go to 3 - seems odd?).</p>

<p>As for the lightroom is way better than Photoshop Elements - uhm...mwah. The RAW conversion engine is identical between the 2, and the rest is workflow mostly, which is a personal preference. I'm happy if you like Lightroom, I tried the beta of version 1 and knew after 10 minutes it would not be my kind of thing. That said - always try the trial, it may just be a glove that fits you perfectly.</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>I've since been quoted (from the same dealer) $125.00 for 2 x 2gb sticks installed. I'd just as soon take it in and have them do it while I wait. I could probably buy them online, for a little less, but I'd like to know what I'm getting. I've seen prices ranging from $40.00 to $80.00 for a 2gb board, so 2 installed for $125.00 isn't exactly highway robbery.</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Wouter, my PC is less than 2 years old. It currently has 2 x 512mb boards installed or 1.024 GB total. The problem, as I understand it, with mixing a higher GB board with a lower GB board (2gb + 1gb for example) is that the lower capacity board dictates the speed.</p>

[shoppix]

<p>You need min of 2gb Ram for current version of Lightroom. I have 2gb and it's driving me nuts as it is slow to re-generate images after any change. I'm processing galleries containing 3-400 images - sports games - at a session.<br>

I've used LR for couple of yrs now and happy with it. Just need to upgrade my computer.</p>

[silcoxrfphoto]

<p>Total amount of memory is critical, but I would like to raise a point that may have been missed in the responses above...memory management. For example, after rebooting your computer and waiting for a couple of minutes check "task manager" and go to the performance tab. How much free memory do you have versus the total amount of memory on the mother board, ignore the virture memory or paging file size. The ratio of actual memory on the mother board and free memory will give you an indication of how many programs are auto loading after rebooting the computer. I have seen computers with 1gb of memory that after a reboot will load 500 megabytes of programs, this results in only 500 megabytes to load Capture NX and or Lightroom, obviously a real slow down will occur. So having a clean boot with the most available memory wil allow for greater speed for any one program. Hope this is helpful.</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>I appreciate all the input. I am going to have my ram boosted next week. After that I'll see how NX2 operates. I expect that it will be much quicker and correspondingly less frustrating. I'm also picking up the new 70-300 VR zoom on Wednesday, so I'll go out and take a few dozen shots in raw and practice on them.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Douglas, you`re right, my NEF files already have their viewing settings writen by my D700; also Aperture has their own ones (here are Apple default settings).<br /> In a stupid manner I was thinking that using NX2, any setting selected by the user could be considered "by default"; so easy as to have selected an standard picture control and open the file. On Aperture the user is forced to go with the "<em>Apple Camera Default</em>" -or- to create a custom profile modifying some limited parameters with sliders. I think NX2 is more practical, easy and "friendly". Anyway, it doesn`t matter at all, as we are talking about RAW display settings. Different routes that go to the same place, thought (BTW, most of the times what I find really difficult is to know where I`m going... :P)</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I put NX2 on my computer for grins because it came with my D700. It lasted about a week before I dumped it. I saw no difference between NX2 opening a .NEF file and CS4 opening a .NEF and CS4 was faster. It seems kind of silly and an unnecessary step to use NX2 to convert .NEF to .jpg and then modifiy in PS when CS4 can do both.</p>

<p>I have never used elements but since it is a way stripped down version of full capability PS, I would not suspect it can work with RAW files directly.</p>

<p>If you are going to shoot RAW, your choices are get NX2 or CS4.</p>

<p> </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Jose, thanks for the comparison and perhaps the default NX2 which reads the internal information can yield such results. I suspect, however, with very little effort and application of global corrections, the Aperture interpretation would be essentially identical. I little bit of contrast, vibrancy a bit of saturation and minor exposure adjustment and you have the same thing. But NX2 is totally unable to handle the concept of workflow and database management of images, at least that was the way it was when I last looked at it. For me the later is very important and broad brush stroke easy to do changes is worth it. </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Jose, thanks for the comparison and perhaps the default NX2 which reads the internal information can yield such results. I suspect, however, with very little effort and application of global corrections, the Aperture interpretation would be essentially identical. I little bit of contrast, vibrancy a bit of saturation and minor exposure adjustment and you have the same thing. But NX2 is totally unable to handle the concept of workflow and database management of images, at least that was the way it was when I last looked at it. For me the later is very important and broad brush stroke easy to do changes is worth it. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Stan,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem, as I understand it, with mixing a higher GB board with a lower GB board (2gb + 1gb for example) is that the lower capacity board dictates the speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, speed and size are 2 different things, but I think you're doing the right thing in getting 2x2 GB in, and $125 for that does sound fairly reasonable (for sure better than 150 for 3GB).</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<blockquote>

<p> elements but since it is a way stripped down version of full capability PS, I would not suspect it can work with RAW files directly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but you're assuming wrong there. Elements is not "way" stripped down. It misses a few features, some of which can be fixed. The main ones missing are curves and masks, for both of which there is a solution to get these functions in Elements. The other main missing bit is working with 16-bits files and CMYK output. For most consumers, no big sacrifices. In return, Elements is a bit more friendly to novice users.<br>

Also, Adobe Converter RAW is simplified in Elements, but it does work and is as compatible as the one from CS4 (since it is the exact same plugin). For most normal users, PS CS4 is overkill, given that Elements does 85% at 20% of the cost, really.</p>

[walterh]

<p>""As for NX2 performance, it's not that it's that much less stable or slower than the Adobe products."</p>

<p>Nice joke I like that one. Well for stability you might even be right in today's version - still it does sound so funny :-)</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Wouter, the tech was talking about using a DDR2 800 with a DDR2 667. The 800 would be brought down to the 667 speed. So, go with 2 x DDR2 800 or 2 x DDR2 667. We're going with 2 x 2gb DDR2 667. From everything I've read, the difference in performance between the two is negligable.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the compaq presario is pretty old. if you are upgrading your pc with larger RAM and HD, why not ask around for a share of a corporate windows XP pro 64-bit so you can maximize the performance of your pc. make sure that the RAM and HD increase can be handled by the motherboard.</p>

<p>for $550-$600 you can get a pc with windows 7 64-bit, 6-8GB of RAM and 500GB-1TB of HD.<br /> if you plan on doing this for a long time, it might be worth considering the initial investment for all your years of photography needs.</p>