Opinions on post processing software ( Photoshop, Lightroom )
- Thread starter darlenec59
- Start date
Kevin, you really are trying top stir up a hornet's nest! :boxing: The reason I said that is that you will get different results with Capture NX2, Lightroom, Aperture and any other RAW converter because each has their own "interpretation" of the RAW image. Some folks swear by Capture NX2 because it can read the proprietary meta data that Nikon hasn't made available to the other vendors. Luckily, most of them have a good evaluation period so you can see for yourself. Personally, if I have an image with a lot of CA or Chromatic Aberration, I'll usually start with Capture NX2. But that is extremely rare.
Theoretically, Lightroom and the corresponding Photoshop version (LR3 and CS5; LR4 and CS6) should give you the same RAW conversion because they use the same "Camera Raw" engine. I don't know positively but suspect the same is true for Elements.
So the question is what do mean by better, right? RAW conversion is pretty subjective. If you mean ease of use, that is another discussion.
I'm not sure I helped answer your questions but may have actually created more.
Last edited:
Capture NX2 has far more going for it, including none destructive and reversable takes. It also accepts plugins like
nikon filters etc. You edit raw files in the same way as you would JPG and also you can use facilitys on jpgs normaly
only found in RAW, such as retreiving shadow and highlight detail etc. Batch processing is also simplyfied.
The biggest flaw of capture NX was it not having a spot removal tool. Capture NX2 put this right, and it works well.
When tested it was also shown to produce slightly more detailed RAW files. Although splitting hairs here lol
Its fast and very eficient. It certainly has one drawback though..... It only works with nikon raw files.
I use different formats.... but Capture NX 2 is so good, i develop RAW from my other makes and I still finnish the
JPGs in Capture NX2. Ive also used adobe for years starting with CS1, then 2 Then 3 and now on CS4.
So Im well aquanted with adobe CS range. I will say one thing for certain.... Capture NX2 kills my CS4 when it
comes to JPGs. Appart from what I already mentioned, it also allows you to add things like D lighting etc.
So no need to set in camera. It will also apply this and everything else that is normaly done as a JPG to the RAW files.
You can litraly do... and treat RAWs as if they were jpeg and jpg as if they were RAWs. This includes even things like
adding skin softner etc. If none destructive files is your bag.... Top that lol
Thats one of the many reasons it is faster. Even if I shoot RAW... you eddit once, to completion.
When you are all done you just convert and make your jpgs.
nikon filters etc. You edit raw files in the same way as you would JPG and also you can use facilitys on jpgs normaly
only found in RAW, such as retreiving shadow and highlight detail etc. Batch processing is also simplyfied.
The biggest flaw of capture NX was it not having a spot removal tool. Capture NX2 put this right, and it works well.
When tested it was also shown to produce slightly more detailed RAW files. Although splitting hairs here lol
Its fast and very eficient. It certainly has one drawback though..... It only works with nikon raw files.
I use different formats.... but Capture NX 2 is so good, i develop RAW from my other makes and I still finnish the
JPGs in Capture NX2. Ive also used adobe for years starting with CS1, then 2 Then 3 and now on CS4.
So Im well aquanted with adobe CS range. I will say one thing for certain.... Capture NX2 kills my CS4 when it
comes to JPGs. Appart from what I already mentioned, it also allows you to add things like D lighting etc.
So no need to set in camera. It will also apply this and everything else that is normaly done as a JPG to the RAW files.
You can litraly do... and treat RAWs as if they were jpeg and jpg as if they were RAWs. This includes even things like
adding skin softner etc. If none destructive files is your bag.... Top that lol
Thats one of the many reasons it is faster. Even if I shoot RAW... you eddit once, to completion.
When you are all done you just convert and make your jpgs.
RickSawThat
Senior Member
I use Aperture more than other programs but I also have and use Photoshop CS4 and on-one plugins for it.
Aperture does the same as what is being described for Lightroom. Makes changes to a new version of the image so the original image is preserved and unaltered.
If I was to buy a new program it would be Lightroom.
Aperture does the same as what is being described for Lightroom. Makes changes to a new version of the image so the original image is preserved and unaltered.
If I was to buy a new program it would be Lightroom.
Sorry but I see a noticeable difference between raw and jpg straight off the camera. If its available why make do with jpg as a starting point for your best shots. It's free to turn on unless you really know you wont wish you had later.
With regard to lenses you can get good pictures with an average lens, however you can get great pics with a good lens. Why make do with the former if you can get the latter? Obviously this point has a cost.
In reality I was just making the statement to emphasize my support for the use of raw which has served me well for many years. If people are happy with jpg that's fine too.
Capture Nx2 works differently here. Rather than producing seperate files it saves the meta data, so that
whenever in the future you bring that pic back up, its all there. You can alter the settings or zero it and start
from the beginning. I prefer this method, since its normaly a case of if you miss something, you can go back
and make the alteration without having to do another complete edit. I would recomend any RAW shooter or
JPG shooter to try capture NX2. The control you have over RAW and JPG files is unbeleivable.
It works very differently from any other program Ive ever used. I think it is very intuitive and easy to learn though.
Anyway... thats my last NX2 plug lol..... I just think its extremely underated and its a top class tool :chuncky:
This is the main reason I don't use NX2. By storing the meta data within the NEF, NX2 is modifying the original file. Photoshop CS3 was notorious for having issues reading the files. I'd rather deal with the occasional sidecar file and ensure my original NEFs are intact. If I do make an edit in NX2, I save an intermediate TIF file and import that into Lightroom.
Last edited:
Nikons out of camera JPGs are indeed soft but can be sharpned a little in camera and better sharpned in PS.
If you read my first post on page one, i have already noted a whole list of good reasons for using or needing JPG.
Yes you can get more detail from a a carefuly processed RAW but its only slight if the jpg is also correctly processed.
Unless you are making ginourmous prints or pixel peeping at 100% you wouldnt see the difference.
I shot the grand national last wk..... I would say there was about 60 of us in the press room.
Every last one shot JPG...... including me. I never saw any cheap lenses being used !
A good lens is just a good lens wether you shoot raw or JPG. F1.4 is F1.4 on RAW or JPG, good contrast is good contrast on RAW or JPG low CAs are Low CAs etc etc etc. RAW files give you more headroom for correction.
Most pics shouldnt need that much correction. RAWs on there own as such are useless to anyone and once you
have processed your RAW, what do you do ? Exactly... turn it into a JPG.
A good point.... Although Ive not experianced that problem. Then again I had CS4 by the time I bought NX
so maybe its been resolved, I dont know :beguiled:
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I gave tried them all and go back to CS5 each time. I can't do without content aware fill and content aware healing brush
patrick in memphis
Senior Member
hi guys ...good thread...i shoot in raw if i think i cant get this pic again.due to the digi negative being more customizable than jpeg.but i use that view nx2 and windows live program to edit pics...what would i gain to up grade/change?