Looking for:
Nikon capture nx 2 vs nx-d free - |
Nikon Capture NX-D RAW Processing Software | Software for Nikon Digital Cameras
See the name? So you basically made this test review rather worthless. The converter you choose has nothing to do with your success From New Zealand's iconic Milford Sound Adobe applies modest sharpening, by default I added. If the results take a lot of wasting of time to get a better, more realistic image that the Nikon software has an advantage.
Did you not look at the files in the link? Is that your idea of significant difference or should I have just dropped "almost" to avoid the possibility of a reply like yours? In a double blind test I don't think either of us could call them out and pick which converter Adobe or Nikon had made the conversion.
Wow, that took 5 seconds. These are the default conversions. They simply match, unerringly, and that's my point. The NEF opens up in both converters looking "exactly" as I have shown Next time I'll drop the qualifier. In a commercial workflow ACR is essential for me.
The Nikon software is just not nor ever has been up to speed - not even close. Couple that with the integration of ACR now as a filter in Photoshop, or for that matter, just the fact that ACR and Bridge are just portals into Photoshop, and you are at another level altogether. As a longtime Nikon shooter, raw only picture control settings are only important in one respect, consistency So, on import, I am really unconcerned with the absolute fidelity of the initial conversion.
I'm a mainstream Adobe user for also other purposes beyond Photography but have tried out many softwares including C1 and Capture NX-D. I care a lot about true detail, sharpness, noise handling and color accuracy and there it gets a complicated story. My most recent expertise with Capture NX-D is - although you would expect the best Nikon conformity - it wasn't very compelling. There is a very decent difference in what I would describe 'overall clarity', being NX-D almost 0.
The color accuracy using the Nikon standard profiles which I don't like too much, a rather prefer Adobe Color is quite close, but I'm missing a small bit of detail in NX-D compared to LR.
I wouldn't know why I would disturb my proven workflow. If I would ever consider to switch I'd rather be on the path toward C1 but to be honest, also there I'm still not fully convinced due to my own findings and can't fully adhere to the many 'wow's' I hear daily about C1. Adobe Camera Raw Con - Camera support can take a while to arrive. Not true. About 3 weeks on average.
Thanks for the review. I noticed that both Nikon products rendered the picture of the lady against the sky with a halo. I have used NX for a couple of years. No comparison because Capture One has a juicy price tag. However, if you are serious with your photos, a step up to a pro software is def worth it.
Adobe has plenty of tutorials plus there are extremely competent bloggers like "Piximperfect" with great tutorials as well. This should factor in when you compare sw solutions.
Nikon has some great explanations as well and a lot of course material, but not nearly as much as Adobe, which is to be expected with a basically free editor. Axial aberration occurs when different wavelengths of light are focused at different distances from the lens focus shift. Longitudinal aberration is typical at long focal lengths. Thank you for explaining what depth is. Now do me a favor and tell me whether DPR tested this feature axial I did try to get rid of it with the Nikkor G 85mm F1.
So it would have been awesome to have the SW testers here give us their take, instead of our foregone conclusion: "it can't be fixed". Just to hammer this home: it is an article claiming to compare features of two sw packages.
Any day I have a suitable image, I will try the Nikon slider. LR has a solution that works to some degree, but I have never tried the Nikon solution. I never knew it was there. So something good DID come out of this article. If you could fix that in PP you would not need sharp lenses. This cast happens in areas outside the definitions of aberrations, so the only thing that can be done is selecting the lens carefully. Trying to correct it is like trying to correct bokeh with a lens profile.
So how do you correct bokeh other than choosing a different lens? It is a question of whether all or only part of the unsharp information is there. With a perfect recording process information would not be lost, but "merely" unintelligible and could possibly be recreated with an appropriate algorithm. I already stated the same thing you write in this thread.
This thread is however about SW testing. It is about comparing what two pieces of SW can do. Try to look up "piximperfect". That genius guy has a youtube tutorial on how to 3D map an image in Photoshop and render whatever bokeh you like. A pin-sharp 20mm F0. No problem. Add bokeh balls - no onion structure! All perfectly matched to distance in front of and behind the focus plane. You use the eyedropper picker in LightRoom to pick the unwanted, artefact outline color in front of and in back of the focus plane respectively.
Sometimes it is very successful and all the cast in usually the branches disappear magically in th eentire image. Sometimes it only works in some small parts of the image and not in other parts of the image, and sometimes it only partly removes the outlines. Hence you take "it cant be fixed" is wrong. Happy shooting! This statement is useless to the ones that seek pros and cons of the sw: "I'd wager that most NX-i users won't have the first clue what "axial color aberration" means" My guess is that the same users will not know what Chromatic Aberration means either.
Instead of guesses I would have appreciated some inkling of how this actually works in comparison to Adobe's sw. They would. Axial CA is a fancy name for the greenish cast towards the back, or red towards the front of areas in sharp focus. Not at all keen on anything from Adobe since their user information database has been hacked - at least two times. HI I'm surprised that one compares a paid software and a free software, I'm surprised that are not compared Darktable, RawTherapee, Ufraw, which are all free and very powerful.
The interest was to compare a builder software free with other free software. I'm surprised that the editor could compare these softwares and give an opinion on a laptop screen, maybe not even calibrated Finally, taking this test seriously, I find it very surprising that this same editor accepts the color drifts given by adobe. Astonishing all this! Moreover, you cant calibrate the laptop monitor. Its not possible to hardware calibrate a laptop monitor. The only thing you do is that you software calibrate the graphic card in only 8 bits.
Fantastic article. People smarter than I have created all sorts of useful profiles including a very convincing Tri-X and a not-bad Kodachrome. For jpeg shooters, the ability to load custom presets into the camera is a powerful feature, one that Adobe cannot touch. Thank you for your trouble and Nikon is pretty much out of the picture with a non-flexible noise reduction routine, because I never use Capture NxD because I am still! Just using one tool sounds like not possible at all.
I need 3 tools because they supplement each other, each adding unique functions. Sometimes I use no. If the perspective gets crazy I change it in Photoshop which is where I also add missing pieces in my handheld panoramas. I find "Less pleasing color than Nikon's software by default" and "Leaves significantly more noise in images by default" as cons for ACR just weird, since raw converters are about profiles. Why not just start the raw converter software with a profile that suit your taste, since there are many profiles included - no matter the name of the software.
See my comment above. The idea that Nikon profiles are some sort of perfection is a little weird. OOC generally steeper. Thanks for the very detailed review.
My concern is that the review turned an ACR advantage into a disadvantage. Nikon's noise control was shown to be overly aggressive and uncontrollable, tending towards plasticy looking images. ACR on the other hand is very controllable and can remove a lot of noise if required, all be it, at the expense of sharpness. The review stated this as a problem with ACR when its controlability is actually a benefit. The reason why there are two programs is that in the old days, ViewNXi was offered for free, whereas Capture-NXd was a paid program.
View came free with each camera, Capture did not. View is no longer needed, though, and even if it has some adjustments that Capture doesn't have, I think it is completely superfluous. The article should have concluded so, and suggested that users stick with Capture and forget about View. The View NX software was always free. As a raw processor it doesn't get very much better than that. For those who need the color editor or tethering you can upgrade to the Capture One Pro version.
We use C1 for all our work except for our Hasselblad cameras and it is stellar. Nikon has indeed been removed from Capture One Express. Implying you went through their entire website? I think not. A lot of websites are organized like junk. Always google where you want to go, if you want to advise others. Just make double sure :- I did google before my first post, but the C1 site 2 took ages to load for some reason. And yes, it is confusing, that they have a page with only Fuji and Sony, but keep calm and google some more and ye shall find LOL.
Not bad. I highly appreciated these interesting comparisons and as retired pro-photographer the most important for me is the easy and fast understanding of an editing photo software, with of course a wide range of really efficient parameters to get the finest desirable result. The free softwares of Nikon are not bad but they don't bring to me what I need, even the "conversion" to another format: Tiff and Jpeg, nothing else though converting a NEF to a DNG would be so appreciated, namely for enabling the future necessary color management of your work creating the camera profile, calibrating the monitor when retouching, the correspondance between the photo colors on screen and its output on the photo dedicated pro-printer thanks to the ICC profiles of the used papers.
Camera Raw enables this because by saving the raw and its chosen parameters in DNG. DNG is really a must for me and Nikon does not enable this I have used Capture NX-d and like it. I have not heard good things about the Fuji raw converter which is based on silkypix. I think you'd have to resort to editing the exif to make that one work tricking the software to think you have nikon files.
Flow - no, I am not talking specifically about this article, but OEM raw editors in general. I am only familiar with CNX-d. But I think every OEM has their own raw editor. I am curious about Fuji - is their raw editor any good? I have been given to understand that Nikon's software is also based on Silkypix.
I used the Fuji version 7 or 8 years ago and it worked pretty much the same as NX-D. Slow, but with some weird and interesting adjustment possibilities. I use View NX-I almost exclusively. It does what I need at this point and as the post says its far easier to use for basic edits that Capture. But the problem I'm currently encountering and I know I'm not the only one is the blockage of final photo processing with my new MacBook Air M1.
Once the changes are made on the photos, I launch the final conversion and the file remains in the queue. Nothing happens. It's been going on for weeks and, for the moment, no update has solved the problem at least not for the French version of Capture NX-D. Capture NX-d is slide-car just like lightroom, your edit save is saved to a separate folder which only the software can read. Capture NX like older Nikon capture has u-point adjustment, don't think view has it.
For View, you can see your edit on any computers with View if you move or copy the file. For editing speed slidecar is faster, because for View every commends is saved as you edit and you get a short freeze on a slower computer.
While Nikon software looks more like what it should be, I still prefer Lightroom 6 for editing options. Why I open capture nx along with lightroom sometimes to make sure I know what the color color is. I do have calibrated duel monitors. What, ok thanks for the update. I guess I haven't gotten the latest version. I just use capture nx d. Good to know. That is because Adobe is miles ahead of any other software for AI Auto that actually works.
I used the auto adjustments for a short period and still find them occasionally useful Smart Lighting can bring shadows up without compromising highlights quickly and well, lens adjustments are great if you want an absolutely clinically optically correct image — I often don't.
For NR, I find that a setting around 12 for DeepPrime and 20 for Prime almost always provide the most natural looking results. Generally no longer a fan of automated clarity as images basically look oversharpened in every program: if you are looking for more clarity, the Fine slider in the Contrast section is the most important tool for natural looking pop.
Returning to automated settings, DxO Photolab will adjust all of the above on opening any image if that's the preset you choose.
I've got my preferred settings as the starting preset, as that gives me the exact starting point I like for my own corrections.
If a given set requires a tweak to that starting preset, it's easy to build takes about ten seconds. I'll step in and put in a good word for CNX-D. It's free, it's full function, and I find it easy enough to use. With these things, it always comes down to familiarity and I've been quite a few years now. First View NX is not designed for editing- it is a viewer. Capture NX-D is. Second the Nikon softwares produce more accurate colour than Adobe.
The Nikon softwares LACK the ability to increase micro-contrast with the far better noise reduction and sharpening that DXO has, and Adobe softwares are handicapped by the crude 0. I regularly use 0. DXO also provides a better gradation to Nikon Raw files over the Adobe softwares, which are convenient but hardly able to do justice to anything as the sharpening is so very crude with high res images.
If you like Nikon software colors better, that's fine, but don't get carried away. Lightroom's sharpening is the best I've found with the best balance of artifacts and detail. It's nice to have all those controls all together in one spot.
If you don't want to become a professional computer jockey instead of a photographer - CNX-d is so much faster to get good colors than playing with dials and switches in ACR all day long. Lightroom's Camera Standard is one of the best raw conversions available without any need for neurotic color twiddling. No, actually, Lightroom's interface is by FAR the easiest, fastest and most intuitive.
Tutorials are available if you're having trouble. String - then, the camera? Because apart from custom white balance - most people just let the camera choose and then do adjustments in post. I would rather spend my time with contrast white point, black point, and curves than spend all of my time fiddling around in ACR trying to get good color. NX-d give me good color easily. You have no need to use ACR, that's what LR is for; make, buy or download a custom profile and set it up to apply to all your nef files on import These little low res thumbnails are moronic, and thats being nice about it.
The interface is a essentially a cross platform java app-style, and it looks inoffensive but nothing close to a modern UI stack. The single most outdated, not modern looking interface is that of Lightroom Classic. No other application or codebase is older, slower and less user friendly than that one. Capture One is way more modern, as is every other image editing application that like Affinity Photo or Pixelmator. The Lightroom modern apps are a different story but they lack so many features that you cannot compare them to Capture One.
My favorite interface is Capture One on Mac. It is slightly less great on a Windows computer but that is more down to Windows. DaVinci is such a great interface on Windows that it doesn't support proper scaling on high-resolution screens without getting blurry. So not. It looks like more could have been done with the Nikon software. Some of the images look like shadows are not raised enough in the View NX-i recipe. That makes skin look dark and unnatural.
The exposure looks cranked up in ACR. That along with some simple white balance chagnes in View could have made the images almost identical. Having just got a good Nikon camera an having read this i decided to download both view and capture on windows 10, in download window it says something about antivirus no additional antivirus other than windows anyone got any clues as to what to do, cheers in advance.
It provides much more control than you would expect for a free RAW developer provided by the camera manufacturer. Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes. Capture NX-D. Product variations. New Nikon software will speed up your post-processing workflow Capture NX-D is a non-destructive RAW image processing application that utilizes a new sidecar system to save adjustments for Nikon photographers looking to make adjustments to their.
NEF or. NRW files. Photographers who are used to working with their. Once the. NRW file is processed, it can then be moved to other imaging applications in a bit TIFF format with a single click of the mouse.
Capture NX-D is designed to get the most out of Nikon RAW image files—so images will look as great as they do whether they're from the latest Nikon cameras or older files that you want to work on again.
Worry-free non-destructive image processing Capture NX-D is non-destructive to RAW image files because it saves adjustments to a sidecar file instead of in the original file so you can always reprocess an image without having to undo all of your changes to date. Capture NX-D uses the same genuine Nikon RAW processing engine that you're already used to working with so migration to the new software will be seamless and consistent from image to image. Enhanced user interface designed for today's digital photographer Capture NX-D's interface was designed for today's digital photographer in mind.
Floating palettes can be arranged in a workspace that best supports your workflow style and needs—even positioned on a second monitor—and you can choose from seven different display styles.
NEF and. You can also combine multiple movie clips and images to make a new file complete with titles, captions, and overlaid music. There are, however, only three transition effects, three still image durations with optional motion effect , and three brief music samples provided. You can also add your own music in.
WAV or. M4A formats, and process movie clips to remove autofocus noise. Unfortunately, you'll need quite a beefy processor and GPU for smooth playback if you shoot in 4K, let alone editing. On my Dell XPS 15 laptop running Windows 10 version , I found p clips from the Nikon Z5, for example, played smoothly but those at 4K resolution stuttered badly.
And that's not down to the hardware, as VLC Media Player played them perfectly smoothly on the same computer, while Windows' own Media Player and Photo apps only dropped a handful of frames.
For one thing, you can now upload images and movies directly to Nikon's Image Space service and YouTube, respectively. You can also view slideshows with optional, user-provided background music, and the new program adds support for more obscure file formats such as 3D Multi Picture Object files or voice notes recorded on older Coolpix cameras.
Really, I can only find a couple of omissions. As mentioned previously, you can no longer undock interface panels, nor can you change whether they appear in the left or right-side palettes. Other than that, I couldn't find any other missing features this time around.
However, on testing the program I've found its results with identical settings to be visually indistinguishable from those of NX-D, even though precise file sizes do differ fractionally at the same compression level. With that being the case, I'll refer you to the second page of my earlier article , instead, for a more detailed analysis. NX Studio is capable of delivering good image quality with very pleasing color and impressive shadow recovery, but feel Adobe still has a slight edge when it comes to fine detail at low sensitivities, which increases at higher sensitivities thanks to significantly stronger noise reduction from Nikon.
The good news is that with no noticeable change in image quality, and with all the same controls on offer as in both predecessors, NX Studio will read and apply all the same tweaks as did either earlier application, meaning you can upgrade without fear of having to rework all of your adjustments.
As for performance, which was already a strong point of Nikon's software compared to that provided by many manufacturers, things are also pretty similar to before.
Adobe still has a small but noticeable edge in the speed of final output processing, and a more substantial advantage in terms of preview performance. Using the same six comparison images as for my previous article, it took 28 seconds to complete the batch. By way of comparison, performance leader Adobe still holds the crown with a time of In my time with Nikon NX Studio, I've found it to be very stable, but that's not to say it's perfect, nor would I expect a brand-new app to be.
I've run across a couple of bugs, although only one strikes me as particularly significant. And both are related to issues I found with the previous apps, as well. Firstly, there's still an issue with detecting dragging of the right-panel scroll bar, regardless of whether the program is running maximized or not.
But where this only happened with my Dell Active Pen, it now also happens with both the touch screen and even when dragging with the mouse. Simply using the scroll wheel or a two-fingered touchpad swipe works around this, however. The program also ignores Windows' scaling settings entirely in mixed-resolution monitor setups when running on an ultra high-def screen. That makes it extremely difficult to use on a 4K display unless you either lower the resolution or disable your lower-res screen s.
The good news is that Nikon is aware of this problem and working on a fix. In the meantime, desktop users with mixed-resolution displays can work around it using a scaling setting built into NX Studio, but notebook users will find that they constantly have to change this setting — which also requires an app restart — every time they disconnect or reconnect a display of differing resolution.
I have to say that it's a big step in the right direction, giving photographers that use Nikon cameras a powerful editing application where they can perform most of the edits they'd want to. The most important thing here is that the new program provides basically everything of any significance from its two predecessors, allowing you to ditch one of them altogether.
Its new interface is noticeably better and easier on the eye, and its performance and image quality are just as good as before. I think this first iteration of NX Studio is a great replacement for Nikon's earlier apps. I like NX Studio a lot. I do my selections and most of the editing here. I want to see the difference between pictures, and before and after editing changes.
But this is really difficult because between viewing the two results, the screen blacks out for several seconds. By then it's hard to see the difference. There is a before and after function where photos are side by side with a scroll function, both showing at the same time. No black out. A 12 MB file gets shrunk to about 1. That should be addressed, as it is a real drawback. No dual display support? Everything else seems so far to be an improvement, or at least an equivalent to ViewNX-i, but not being able to open the selected image on my second display is very disappointing indeed.
I run it with dual displays with no issues. I did have to figure out the settings to make it happen however. Do a search on-line and you will find the directions to make it happen.
What I was after was menus on one smaller screen and image alone on the other. How have the fixed menu locations on Studio affected the dual screens? For people with large numbers of files, should offer the option of showing file names in a compact format rather than thumbnails taking up huge amounts of the screen.
The results are excellent and the software is quite speedy and the new workflow is much quicker. Thanks Nikon for a great professional grade, free, software. So far, it has crashed on my Win 10 PC several times, and it often refuses to actually execute things like Retouch. Convoluted to say the least. Nice freebie for a light user but definitely not in the same league as a professional tool like Lightroom, either cloud or classic. I have a decent setup, recent i7, 16GB ram, but NX studio runs kinda slow and my computer is churning away just to go through photos.
Strangely, when accessing photos via memory card, it's much faster, so it doesn't like pulling from my folder on the computer. Wondering if I set it up wrong or something I have set up the colours spaces so they are identical in NX and Affnity. When I export a tiff file to my harddisk and then open it in Affinity, the colors are spot on. I have never had this problem when exporting from Capture One Pro 10 to Affinity. Any ideas? Other than that I really like the programme.
But if I have to go the tiff route every time, I have to transfer a raw-file to Affinity that is definitely a "deal breaker" even though the programme is free. Finally figured out what happened. NX studio simple throws the raw-edit, I have done, away when it sends the raw-file to Affinity. Nice work Nikon or something Bye Bye Nx Studio. I am used to that possibility in ViewNX Yes but you cannot specify the required file type. If you edit a raw file in studio and then open in something else from studio, the raw file is passed to the other program.
NX-D allowed one to specify 16 bit for example. I'll stick with NX-D for now, hopefully they will fix this. Would not consider it a deal breaker, but agree that it complicates the workflow. I already posted it to Nikon and hope for an update in a not so far future. Another issue I found is noise reduction. The advanced settings which I could apply for my D files are not available.
I hoped for an update within NX-D or at least enhanced settings in NX Studio, but regrettably this has not been remedied yet.
Come on, Nikon, you can do better Looked good for a couple of days but now constantly crashing my Windows 10 machine with 'Page Fault in non-paged area' - very disappointed :. Yes, I've experienced similar issues and others as well posted below.
I don't think this is ready for use yet. I'll be sticking with NXD for now for my initial processing of nature photos. One challenge I'm going to have is figuring out how to revert back to View NX-i, which I find easier for tagging and meta data. With all the problems with NX-Studio, I can't trust that it won't mess up my edits if I try to use it for geotagging.
Anyone know of a way to have something similar to the Photo Tray with this new program? I used it to sort out "keepers" then edited and exported them. Expected focus stacking in NX studio so that a paid application altogether could be done away with.
Using it, and colour me impressed! Needs fine-tuning. One important note for me is that when it first opens the unedited the RAW files, I find that edges and details especially on fabrics and faces are not as good as Lightroom.
Is it because Lightroom uses Sensei as a demosaic method? The processor was struggling on the MacBook Air but the new M1 processor on makes it a breeze.
After I downloaded and installed the new NX, my Photoshop stopped working. Does anyone else have that problem too? I downloaded NX Studio not expecting much -- not a fan of Capture. But Studio is pretty impressive.
It loads quickly and has a good range of basic tools. I see myself using it a lot. So I notice the Photo tray is gone. Is there any way to do the same thing? I used it to hold all the images I wanted to edit. It looks good, but I don't think I understand the color management options.
Without getting weird results. ViewNX-i was quite sluggish on my system. ViewNX-i would take a few minutes to start up on my system, which is a i7 3. Perhaps it was the size of my photo library that it was taking a long time to load.
But NX Studio is quite snappy. Oh its also great to see that data and edits can be placed directly into the raw file rather than side car. Its actually really good, I am pretty impressed with it, much better than having separate software for separate tasks. I noticed one bug, if you make edits and then quit the app MAC it was ask to save the edits, select yes and it returns back to the software rather than quitting.
Good to see this and great for Nikon owners who don't want to pay for additional software. I've tested it, and it works well, very well given that it's free. Compared to the predecessor, usability is considerably better. However, I gain better and more flexible results with DxO Lab.
That's worth the price for me, and it's actually much more affordable than the incumbents. It's part of the package when you buy a Nikon camera. To be fair comparing NX Studio with other tools make sense it they ar free too. NX Studio is a nice gift to Nikon users, with some limitations. If lens correction is important to you, and if you use non Nikon lenses on your camera body, there is an interesting alternative.
Rawtherapee free can read the database of Adobe DNG converter free. The list of Nikon compatble lenses from Adobe is pretty extensive, That way if I share the file or whatever, or ingest it into another program, like LR, the coordinates wouild already be there.
And I don't think this could be too difficult. I mean I assume that whether the GPS coordinates are there or not, the overall structure data fields are probably there in the file they're just probably blank so adding this after that fact shouldn't be too hard.
I know that there are some tools people can use, but this is an OEM piece of software, and sometimes third-party apps writing back into proprietary RAW files can cause corruption. You can put the location information by clicking on the location on a map or you can use a gpx track and the software can automatically extract the location information for all images in the folder.
This is why i use it. No but I'm talking about NX saving it back into the RAW file so that other programs can ingest the data by simply reading the file. I think NX stores it in a separate file or a database on the computer. Ah my mistake then. You could try to change the 'Save Type' setting to save adjustments to the original file instead of the sidecar file. That might work but i didn't try it. At this point it's not a big deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment