CaptureNX

[three_eyed_otter]

Is CaptureNX worth the 150 bucks that Nikon is asking for it? Personal opinions, true life stories and other forays are all welcome:er:.

have a good one
3Eo

 

[n0ccj]

The software is ok. im still getting used to it, but since i use my canon more than my nikon it takes a while to get used to it.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

So would I use it alongside photoshop or can it do what photoshop can do?

have a good one
3Eo

 

[ANDS!]

Or rather, Photoshop can do what it does. If you have PS - I would stick with that.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

Or rather, Photoshop can do what it does. If you have PS - I would stick with that.

I don't have photoshop but I can buy a suite of adobe products from the university that includes photoshop. The adobe suite will cost more than CaptureNX but I would be getting more bang for my buck as far as software diversification is concerned. I was just thinking that it might be better to stay w/the proprietary Nikon stuff? I also do not want to be learning a bunch of different software workflows which is why I don't want to purchase both.

Is one better than the other or is it a case of one doing some things better and the other program doing other things better?

have a good one
3Eo

 

[ANDS!]

If you're able to get the university discount for CS3 - I would most definitely do so.

The thing w/ Photoshop, is it will seem ridiculously bloated and advanced when you first start out, but day by day, photochop by photochop, the entirety of the program will start to come into focus. Honestly - just from looking at the CaptureNX website, I can't think of a single thing CNX can do that PS wouldn't be able to - quicker and with more latitude. Just use Picassa to grab files from your camera, and then PS to edit them.

 

[Garbz]

Photoshop and Capture are two different programs with two different goals. Compare Capture to something like Lightroom. Even if you do have PS it's worth looking into Lightroom or CaptureNX or some other program to manage the files as they come off the camera.

Now my opinions are No it's not worth it. I've used it for ever before someone pointed out to me the other RAW processing programs. I tried Optics Pro, Bible Pro, and eventually settled for Adobe Lightroom.

Reasons to go Lightroom over Capture:
- Better colour reproduction
- Better control over the curves
- Capture's little colour wheel things was insanely difficult and counter intuitive to me, others may have had better luck. Lightroom's selective hue adjustments are just great.
- Work flow oriented to edit ALL you images at once.
- Far smaller memory footprint.
- Far Far Far smaller memory footprint when capture has as many photos open as lightroom.
- Options are easier to understand, layout is nicer, changes are applied MUCH faster.
I could go on, but I won't.

I mentioned that PS and Lightroom / Capture are mutually exclusive. You still often need some kind of program to do advanced editing. Things like layers overlays, with plugins etc. This sort of thing can not be done in any of the programs geared to simple post processing. Photoshop integrated automagically with Lightroom, but even with a free PS alternative like GIMP the integration still works very well. Clicking edit in external application makes a copy of the file, allows you to edit it, and then stacks the saved file next to the original.

I suggest you don't download a trial otherwise you'll get hooked

 

[three_eyed_otter]

If you're able to get the university discount for CS3 - I would most definitely do so.

Yeah, that's the one. So photoshop and lightroom are two different products right? Will both of these accept my NEF Nikon files, so that I may turn them into both JPEG's and TIFF's?

have a good one
3Eo

 

[n0ccj]

i completley agree with garbz. lightroom and cs3 is better.

 

[ANDS!]

Yes. However I would try Lightroom first to make sure that its something you'll need. I use Picassa to grab my photos, but PS has device central which does that as well so yea - play with Lightroom first - make sure its a neccisity for what you want to do. If you're not going to deal with a lot of high volume photographs, mostly amateur stuff, hobbying - you may want to stick with two apps that can accomplish similar things like LR.

 

[sabbath999]

Let me first preface my comments by telling you that I like taking pictures, and I don't enjoy the process of the "digital darkroom." I pretty much only use post processing when I have either screwed something up when taking the picture originally, or when I need to give a shot a bit of extra "oomph". Many people consider post processing the most fun part of photography... but they are (obviously) not me.

I use Capture NX 95 percent of the time when I do post processing, and PS about 5 percent of the time (basically for cloning).

I won't sit here and say that CNX is superior in every way to PS, because it is not. I will say that, generally, I can do what I need to do in CNX in about 30 seconds, whereas it takes me a lot longer and a ton more work to do it in PhotoShop.

I find CNX extremely intuitive and easy to get the effect that I want with virtually no time wasted. I can do the same thing in PS, but not as quickly (and yes, I do know how to do it... I use PhotoShop daily at work).

To me, CNX is designed for photographers, where as PhotoShop is designed for graphic artists.

Most people will tell you to use PS and forget about CNX. I have no idea how much experience they have with CNX, and wouldn't presume to guess. I have used both CNX and PS extensively, and I choose to do everything I can in CNX rather than PS.

To me, the image is everything, and if I can get the same image out of a program that takes one tenth the time to do it, I will pick that program every time.

But that is me.

 

[ANDS!]

I would also say that the people perhaps recommending PS - have also used it before they ever used CNX, so I wouldn't go so far as to say its a "graphic artist" vs. "photographer" issue and simply what you are familiar with.

 

[jstuedle]

Something not mentioned or overlooked, NX can modify your image without altering your raw files. When using P-Shop or another software package, after post processing the file, you need to save it as a TIFF or JPEG. NX maintains your cameras RAW file but saves a small file of the changes you made. At anytime you can open up your image and add more changes, or back out of the changes you already made with out compression losses or destruction of the NEF file. I really believe to get the full richness and depth of a manufacturers raw file, not to mention all the data embedded within the file, you want to use that makers software. One of Nikon's strengths is the quality of the NEF architecture. I have Capture NX, but I am not proficient with it yet. I am still being lazy and using what I've been using for years. Had to teach old dogs ..... well you know.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

Fellow forum members thanks for all of the opinions/facts but now because of you all and my no good-dirty rotten-pig stealin' great great grandfather I feel that I have to do some software test drivin' which bugs me to no end because I like paper manuals.:er::meh::cyclops:ldman:

have a good one
3Eo

 

[jstuedle]

Fellow forum members thanks for all of the opinions/facts but now because of you all and my no good-dirty rotten-pig stealin' great great grandfather I feel that I have to do some software test drivin' which bugs me to no end because I like paper manuals.:er::meh::cyclops:ldman:

have a good one
3Eo

Enjoy! And let us know what you "discover".