nick_onslow

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5007969">Richard</a>,<br /> ACR 6 is getting there regarding detail, but color profiles and details in shadows and hightlights are better than excellent in NX2. Pictures from my new Nikon camera look great in Lightroom 3 beta, but even better in NX2. I think Active D-lighting is the magic at work. On an older Nikon camera I could apply some default tone curves that all sucked, now the contrast applied is D-lighting and I was really impressed. I believed that I could do that better in Photoshop after opening the RAW file in ACR with the highlight-shadow tool, but the defaults in NX2 were great. One thing is certain and that is that versions of ACR older than v6 are no good or too much work.<br /> What I like about NX2 is that it makes me understand the settings on the camera very well, and I can now use them both for in-camera processed JPGs and RAW processing though NX2 -> Photoshop. It IS a waste of time to change settings on a camera only to see the image opened in ACR with some not too good default settings every time.<br>

A shame Nikon did not make a light version of CNX as a ACR like plugin for Photoshop. </p>

<p>If you are a Nikon shooter, Capture NX 2 is by far the best RAW converter. Adobe Lightroom 3 and Adobe Camera RAW 6 are getting closer but still not close enough. There is still a lot of manual labour involved in getting results that match what Capture NX does automatically by understanding the NEF file and applying the Nikon picture controls used in the camera.<br>

I had to re-convert a lof of images because the results from Capture NX where just much better and I am a pretty good at post processing.</p>

<p>I used Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw (that is also the "engine" in Lightroom) for years until I gave Nikons "Capture NX 2" a try. A much better RAW converter that understands Nikon NEFs perfectly and applies the same picture control settings as the camera. A waste of time, I should have known that Capture NX makes pictures that look identical to the ones I saw on the LED.<br>

Give the 60-day trial a go. CNX is my RAW converter of choice now. It may not be a perfect user interface and it is annoying that you'll have to pay for it but my RAW files are imported into Photoshop now in a quality so good that I almost don't edit color, contrast and sharpness at all, instead I can focus on editing the details in the image.</p>

<p>The D90 is a great camera, and it will be a great upgrade. You will love it. I think one should only buy the D300 instead if you REALLY know exactly why. The difference in image quality between the two is not big, there are differences but a guy like you should probably buy the D90 and some great glass.<br>

A few examples of what the D300 can, that matters:</p>

<ul>

<li>the D300 has better metering</li>

<li>the D300 has more focus points</li>

<li><em >the D300</em> has AF <em >micro adjustment</em> for each lens and can save these settings</li>

<li>the D300 perhaps has the same sensor chip as the D90 but the post processing and rendering is better in the D300: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp</a></li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>"Unfortunately, for those people hoping that the D90 would effectively be a half-price D300, the RAW results appear consistent with those from the JPEGs. Although the underlying silicon is likely to be closely related, it's not necessarily safe to assume that it shares the D300's multi-channel read-out, or downstream processing componentry (Nikon's Expeed branding doesn't refer to a specific processor). Most importantly, there is nothing to suggest that the D90 shares the same low-pass filter assembly (which can be more expensive than the sensor itself and would be an obvious place to reduce costs for a camera in this price-bracket), which would explain the difference in per-pixel-sharpness we see here."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If ISO performance is the only thing that annoyed you with the D70, you'll love the ISO performance when shooting with the D90. <br>

Two reviews:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/</a></p>

<p>Best regards</p>

<p>Now this is an old thread but I have to answer it, because the net is spammed with wrong information. I have to contribute with some FACTS regarding the color modes. It is like <strong>no one</strong> understands these modes and Nikon certainly did not make understanding them easy.<br /> <br /> I can only clarify what color modes means on a Nikon D80, but if you have a Nikon camera, read your manual and you will find the information about color modes on your model. Apparently Nikon fooled around with different color modes and naming conventions.<br /> <br /> Here we go. On a D80 you can choose between these three color modes, and I am quoting the manual now, page 80:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Color mode: Control color reproduction. Photos taken in modes Ia and IIIa are adapted to the sRGB color space and are suited for printing or use “as is,” with no further modifi cation. Choose Ia for portrait shots and IIIa for nature or landscape shots. Mode II is adapted to the Adobe RGB color space, which supports a wider gamut of colors than sRGB. Mode II is the preferred choice for photos that will be extensively processed or retouched.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken Rockwell knows a thing or two about color modes, but what he writes sometimes makes no sense. He claims that mode 1 is dull and mode 3 is better. Now these modes are not just three presets like boring, better, perfect or dull, medium, rainbow. They each have a different purpose and they are VITAL if you shoot in JPG. <br /> <br /> <strong>Mode Ia</strong> reproduces skin colors accurately and applies LESS CONTRAST... thats a portait setting. <br /> <strong></strong><br /> <strong>Mode II</strong> is more or less the Adobe RGB that indeed does capture a wider gamut of colors. Choose this if you know how to process colors in Photoshop/GIMP/whatever.<br /> <strong></strong><br /> <strong>Mode IIIa</strong> enhances reds and greens for great color in landscape/macro/nature shots and can RUIN skin colors. This mode also applies more contrast.<br /> If you want your portraits to pop, choose Mode 1a and add saturation and contrast in Photoshop/GIMP/whatever. Don't use Mode II/Adobe RGB unless you totally understand what color spaces is all about and only if you know how to convert images from one color space to another.<br /> Now, this is 1) portrait 2) Neutral 3) Landscape thing goes for more Nikon settings. In newer versions of Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw you can also choose these color profiles: D2Xmode1, D2Xmode2, D2Xmode1... and the pattern is the same:<br /> D2Xmode1: best for portraits<br /> D2Xmode2: neautral, best for images that you will post process<br /> D2Xmode3: best for nature/landscape<br /> Always monkey around with color modes, sometimes nature will work beautifully with images of people and cities. You never know.<br /> If you do have a Nikon, give Nikon Capture NX a try. It wont replace Photoshop but it is a much better RAW converter for Nikon RAW files and you will find every setting you know from your camera right inside the program including picture controls and color modes. If your camera settings are perfect, they will work equally perfect in Capture NX. Other RAW converters are guessing, simulating. With a 60 day trial you'll have time to evaluate. I firmly believed that Adobe did everything better than anyone else and wasted three years using Adobe Camera Raw.<br /> I have now found tons of websites and users with tons of misunderstandings - I hope Nikon understand what a waste this is. Apparently they do, I have now seen Nikon cameras with only sRGB and Adobe RGB modes.<br /> Happy shooting :-)</p>