Beware that you are not comparing apples to apples (Nikon ViewNX is free and Adobe tools are expensive tools)

One of the differences I saw is when dealing with IR photos, Adobe tools do not go so low in temperature... but in other aspects, Adobe tools are superior t ViewNX/ViewNX2.

I use Lightroom 3.x However, when i really want to extract the most details, I too use Nikons Capture NX2. Not for every raw mind you-- there are times when the jpeg is just fine, but when i really want to go to town, use Capture. For some reason, I just can't get LR 3 to match it.

Hope that helps.
J

Indeed, certainly the framework of the application is about as visually appealing as dose of the flu, hence I immediately took a dislike to it when I first installed the software when I purchased the camera...but I should have taken heed of a saying we have over here, never judge a sausage by its skin! ;o)

I suppose you're right, my immediate excitement of NX was simply the drastic improvement over the default image that it displays, that for me was enough to say it was a good piece of software!

Now that I'm more aware of it's usefulness I shall dig a little deeper to see what it can (or can't do) and then I might start encountering some of the bugs you mention.

robtarren said:
but it's clear from what you're saying that NX is a pretty good piece of software in it's own right so why try and mimic what it's doing elsewhere.

Robtarren,

I am glad that talking about our experiences have helped with your choices. In my view, photography is very much about trying things out and learning from those experiments. It could easily be a never ending process!!! :-)

I think you might also like to reconsider the sentence of yours I quoted above...

NX seems to work ok for me (and several others, including you), but to say that it a "pretty good piece of software" is ... well ... in my view, a bit much. Why?

I may be lucky, but Photoshop over several versions, has not ever crashed out on me at all - not once. NX2 has, several times. Bad for NX2.

View NX2 does not do it all... far from it in fact. View NX2 and Transfer NX2 (that came with my dSLRs) have lots of PS type features missing and also how many 3rd party add-ins are there for it? Bad for NX2.

Capture NX2 (you pay extra for it - if it comes with dSLRs now, then its bundled into the cost of the camera so you are STILL paying for it), seems a little buggy, even if it does have some of the features I think are missing in View NX2. It also looks to me like it was written in the days of Windows 3. It really does need a major update too. Bad for NX2.

All that said, NX2 gives (in my opinion) better images. I guess it is all down to the results you want.

<sigh> .....

Aperazzo said:
Had what would seem to be the same issue myself...

D90 RAW files straight out of the camera look great in Lightroom, D7000 RAW were good the first second then Lightroom kicked in somehow and they became way too dark. I didn't have the problem with other viewers etc. Then I read on a forum that it should have something to do with Active -Lighting. Switched that off on my D7000 and the problem has pretty much gone for all pictures that I made since.

If you ask me, Adobe has or had not yet fully figured out what D-Lighting does to D7000 RAW files. Nikon -obviousily- didn't have that problem when they released the latest NX version...

Had what would seem to be the same issue myself...

D90 RAW files straight out of the camera look great in Lightroom, D7000 RAW were good the first second then Lightroom kicks in somehow and they became way too dark. I didn't have the problem with other viewers etc. Then I read on a forum that it should have something to do with Active -Lighting. Switched that off on my D7000 and the problem has gone for all pictue that I made since.

If you ask me, Adobe has or had not yet fully figured out what D-Lighting does to D7000 RAW files. Nikon -obviousily- didn't have that problem when they released the latest NX version...

Thanks guys, some really useful bits of information there. I sooo wish I'd known about the differences when I started shooting all my images in raw when I upgraded to a D7000, as I seemed to spend an incredible amount of time retouching them when initially loading them into PS. I think I just fell into the trap that 'Adobe knows best'!

I only noticed the drastic differences as I've bought a new iMac and had to reinstall all my Nikon software, and when I transferred my latest batch of images across it was NX that popped up as the default viewer...I couldn't believe the difference in the appearance and quality of the unedited photos!

That was the point of my original post, I wanted to try and replicate what NX is doing inside PS, but it's clear from what you're saying that NX is a pretty good piece of software in it's own right so why try and mimic what it's doing elsewhere.

As you say, it's all about preference, there is no right and wrong, I'm sure there are strong supporters in both camps who will vehemently defend their corner, it's just what suits your needs the best.

bjrichus said:
I am waiting for negative comments from my previous post too :-(

Not sure why that kind of thing evokes so much passion in some quarters...

For my money (and it is MY cash I am spending on this stuff), it's what you individually prefer that counts. What I do fits my needs and the qualities of what I get out of it is right for me. I have tried just about all the alternatives I can afford and am happy with my current set up.

Can you recall what the differences were between Capture or any other software you tried?

I wonder if the format of a NEF file originated from Nikon or is it derived from some other format?

There could be an entire software industry in this kind of thing!!!

My workflow is a lot like yours. I edit the raw in Capture NX2(edit levels, white balance, light retouching...etc.) then convert to a .TIFF file and import into PS CS5 and do all my heaving editing and noise reduction then save a PSD, TIFF and JPEG of the final.

I've found that color graduation as well as artifacting is not an issue in Capture and it doesn't look as good in anything else. Not to mention white balance accuracy and overall dynamic range. Everything just looks better in Capture, it's not one particular thing. For me, this works the best.

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
I know a lot of people will flame this comment, but

I am waiting for negative comments from my previous post too :-(

Not sure why that kind of thing evokes so much passion in some quarters...

For my money (and it is MY cash I am spending on this stuff), it's what you individually prefer that counts. What I do fits my needs and the qualities of what I get out of it is right for me. I have tried just about all the alternatives I can afford and am happy with my current set up.

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
I prefer Capture NX2's raw conversion above all else.

Can you recall what the differences were between Capture or any other software you tried?

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
Nobody does NEFs like Nikon.

I wonder if the format of a NEF file originated from Nikon or is it derived from some other format?

There could be an entire software industry in this kind of thing!!!

I know a lot of people will flame this comment, but I prefer Capture NX2's raw conversion above all else. Nobody does NEFs like Nikon.

robtarren said:
I certainly prefer the default output that NX provides over the PS!

Me too. My workflow is odd ... just like me, but then I am not a wedding photographer with zillions of shots of the bridal party all needing to be made just right for the sales pitch.

I'll usually look at an image in-camera and decide if it is too 'wrong' (out of focus etc), and delete these 'wrong' shots - no mercy.

I import my remaining shots to the PC using Nikon Transfer 2 and do some basic editing (cropping and exposure changes mostly) in NX2 before I export them to JPG or TIFF format to do the more detailed work in CS5, where I do the retouching, spot removal, B&W conversion, noise removal and so on.

Sometimes I open the raw files inside CS5, but like you I personally prefer the results from NX2. It's personal taste - everyone is different.

robtarren said:
Thanks again...

Welcome...

Best advice anyone can give (in my view) is to TRY out all the trial versions of software for photography you'll find out there. You'll discover that there are differences between packages designed to do the same thing, some of them quite surprising too. Not all cameras *OR* *SOFTWARE* is created equal.

Then, use whatever combo of stuff *YOU* prefer, it is *YOUR* work after all...

Thanks ever so much for taking the time to respond. I think that's me being completely naive in respect of RAW files, as I just assumed each software package simply applied the same base defaults when opening a fresh RAW image.

I certainly prefer the default output that NX provides over the PS!

One setting that did seem to make a drastic difference and bring the two images back in line was under 'Camera Calibration', it was set to 'Adobe Standard' which seems to completely underexpose everything. I've changed it to 'Camera Neutral' which gives much more appealing results!

Thanks again...

bjrichus has it right. All Raw converters have slightly different results if you use the default or auto settings. You just have to play with each file to get what you want.

robtarren said:
why are there difference between images I view in ViewNX2 and the same ones in Photoshop?

Rob,

It's possibly just because the default settings for PS and NX are such that one (or more) is a little bit more or less contrasty/lower key/higher key/under or over exposed (take your pick of favorite sliders to mess about with), than the other. You may also have left a slider just a little bit off-center from last time? It could be worth while taking the trouble to double and even triple check that everything is back on default or neutral settings in both packages.

In PS CS5, there is an options menu setting for RAW files about auto applying some tone control or other (cant remember what it is called right now) to raw images, which might change how they appear - you might want to verify that the box for it is unchecked...

Remember, these are also very different software packages from different companies and they will most likely almost always do something different from the other one somewhere too...

Someone once said to me that Nikon knows how to get the best out of the image format they defined. Same is true for Canon for Canon format, Leica etc. This does not mean that we might actually PREFER the results from some other makers software to Nikon NX...

As that famous phrase goes: "Your Mileage May Vary."

;-)

Hi guys, real noob question here, but I'm obviously missing a key setting when it comes to viewing my RAW files in Adobe applications...why are there difference between images I view in ViewNX2 and the same ones in Photoshop?

Here's an example of a photo of my cat - http://www.robtarren.co.uk/example/cat.jpg

The image on the left is opened in ViewNX2 and the one on the left is in Photoshop.

It's exactly the same file, but as you can see, ViewNX2 clearly displays the eyes whereas Photoshop make poor little Sylvester's eyes disappear into his fur! Everything seems underexposed in Adobe.

I'm sure there's just a few tick boxes I need to select in the preferences, but don't really know what I'm looking for!

Any help greatly appreciated! Cheers, Rob