do you loose stuff with raw?

[jsnonzzr]

From my personal experience Lightroom and Photoshop don't even come close to rendering the Nikon RAW format accurately the way CaptureNX2 does. After switching to CaptureNX2 for my initial import and looking at the same shot in Photoshop I can't believe how horrible the image looks in Photoshop.

What you are losing is some of the information on the cameras settings itself. In NX you can apply the cameras settings to the NEF file. I shoot RAW+Jpeg and when the Jpegs look fine I apply the camera settings to the NEF. If they dont look right I tweak the image and discard the Jpeg. You should try downloading the trial version of NX2 and, playing with it and, then trying it in whatever you are processing with to see the differences.

Thanks, so to make sure I am fully understanding, I can still have the same picture that the camera is showing me, I just have to go and set my white balance and color and other things up the way the camera had already done it for me?

 

[namratasnv]

yeah... i know adobe has to back into it as nikon, or other manufactures are not up for sharing... or so the interweb says. so i can see maybe 10% or so... I was just wondering how much truth and if it still applied to any degree

Yes you are right as, I found the same situation so, I am finding this and as soon as I will come to know, I will let you know.

This is something very important to know.

Thanks

 

[Joves]

From my personal experience Lightroom and Photoshop don't even come close to rendering the Nikon RAW format accurately the way CaptureNX2 does. After switching to CaptureNX2 for my initial import and looking at the same shot in Photoshop I can't believe how horrible the image looks in Photoshop.

What you are losing is some of the information on the cameras settings itself. In NX you can apply the cameras settings to the NEF file. I shoot RAW+Jpeg and when the Jpegs look fine I apply the camera settings to the NEF. If they dont look right I tweak the image and discard the Jpeg. You should try downloading the trial version of NX2 and, playing with it and, then trying it in whatever you are processing with to see the differences.

Thanks, so to make sure I am fully understanding, I can still have the same picture that the camera is showing me, I just have to go and set my white balance and color and other things up the way the camera had already done it for me?

Yes you can in NX2 . Also NX2 is only $180 and the differrence in how it handles your images make it cheap. Like I said try it for free and see if it works for you. You should be OK unless your system is old or, on the low end of the compatability chart.

 

[Kofman13]

ok, so based on that:
#1 u HAVE to shoot nikon and
#2 if not shooting nikon u must shoot jpg for best quality.
Now you probably see that what he says isn't accurate. Personally, I never learned & don't have time to learn how to setup profiles in adobe raw converter thus for RAW i use Capture but not b/c of higher image quality but bc it'll read my camera settings and my adjustments will be minimal if any (b/c mostly everything is done in-camera).

wait i dont get it.. what do you mean you have to shoot nikon, you cant do raw on canon? lol

 

[IgsEMT]

wait i dont get it.. what do you mean you have to shoot nikon, you cant do raw on canon? lol

You didn't know, no1 else can sshoot raw, only Nikon. Or rather in the hands of an ********* only Nikon shoots raw

 

[Overread]

Firstly, I'd stop listening to that salesman. :roll:

Although, it's certainly true that different RAW programs can give you different results. I read an article that compared 4 different ones and pointed out some of the differences.

It's not really a big deal, you are still in control of your post processing.

I belive that was the RAW comparison linked on TPF (it was linked from here but I can't recall if it was done by a member or not) that I also read. If it is then I agree there were some differences shown but overall there was only a marginal difference in the end results. There was one program which did have an advantage but looking at the test results the cost of the program was not really beneficial to the amateur unless they already had a complete setup and were gathering up programs and gear for that final level of "polish"

 

[NateWagner]

agreed, I think I've seen others mention it as well (perhaps Jeff Ascough?)

Anyway, there's no way that it would make much of a difference whether you're using the NX2 or something else, it has advantages but the question is if it's worth the money over something more like free.

 

[Derrel]

From my personal experience Lightroom and Photoshop don't even come close to rendering the Nikon RAW format accurately the way CaptureNX2 does. After switching to CaptureNX2 for my initial import and looking at the same shot in Photoshop I can't believe how horrible the image looks in Photoshop.

That's because Nikon's software is designed to maximize the RAW images made by Nikon cameras,and not the RAW images for Pentax,Sony,Minolta,Olympus,Canon, Samsung,Hasselblad, Mamiya,Kodak,FujiFilm, and another half-dozen camera manufacturers. All the resources that went into developing Nikon Capture have been optimized specifically for Nikon, including the full raw specifications which Nikon has NOT shared completely with other software developers. Adobe has had to reverse-engineer the NEF format; NIkon is not compelled to disclose eveything about its image file format and its informational structure; Adobe for example has to GUESS at the white balance information encoded into every Nikon D2x or D2Xs NEF file; that information is proprietary,in Nikon's view, and that white balance information is a key component that Nikon Capture can read; all other converters must "guess" the white balance. Nikon is different than Canon in this regard.

Nikon CaptureNX will also allow you to work with JPEG and TIFF files from all other camera manufacturers, however, mostly so that users of those cameras can gain access to a remarkable feature called Control Point Technology, or U-Point Technology (same thing, developed by Nik Software, te company that actually writes Nikon Capture software).

I've owned Nikon Capture since version 1.0 went to 1.1; it is NOT the same type of software as Lightroom OR Photoshop. Most really "hardcore" Nikon shooters think that Nikon Capture is the best raw file converter for Nikon .NEF files, but the workflow is vastly different, and slower, than Photoshop and especially Lightroom. Look up Control Point Technology or U-Point technology, which is available free as part of Nikon Capture NX. The Japanese language has a special word for the yellow-green color of green of a newly emerging spring plant; the green renditions and differentiations between Adobe products and Capture are one of the biggest areas of difference: Nikon is from a culture where green rendition is a part of the language and the psychological mindset; other software is not. Green is green is green, right? NO-ask Nikon or FujiFilm about green rendition and its importance to the overall color palette.

Nik Software sells this technology as Viveza. IF you'd like to see how Nikon Capture will allow a BEGINNER to make AMAZING adjustments to his or her photos by using the local controls and the smart-masking technology without a 5- to 10-year training period in Photoshop, go to the URL below and look at the tutorial, and you'll see what the Nikon Capture-using salesman slash teacher was trying to tell a bunch of beginners. Look through the on-line lessons,and you will see the huge image editing potential Capture brings with it. And no, it is not the same as quick masking in the Adobe family; Nik Software's technology was unmatched for several years,and still is, And Adobe tried desperately to come up with an equivalent, but they failed to make it beginner-level accessible. For the kind of people who want results, with a few clicks of the mouse and a slider or two, that is why Nikon Capture NX 2 is one of the most unusual raw converters and editors. NX2 is NOT a DAM program, like Lightroom or Aperture.

Nikon Capture gets a bad rap from people who do not own Nikon cameras, or who have never used it,and think that all products are created equal,and that Adobe's products are the "best". Lots of brand loyalists advocate for Lightroom and Photoshop, but there are many serious Nikon users who understand the value of software designed to FULLY optimize their files, and not be a COMPROMISE software app, capable of doing "okay" on 199+ different raw file formats spread across a decade and multiple companies.

Nikon | Imaging Products | CaptureNX2

Look at the Lessons sub-head and watch the demos. You will see what the salesman/educator at the camera store was trying to convey.

 

[Dominantly]

I have been told (by my camera instructer at wolf camera) that if I use anything besides captureNX, I will only be unlocking 40% of the picture..."and thats a fact".

From my googling, I have noticed that this seems like it might have been true, but I cant find anything to confirm if this is the case. Can someone give me the back ground on this, or a link that will help me understand? I have googled a few times and cannot find an answer to this part of my question.

Well, you should invite your instructor to sign up on here so we can do some instructing.

First, know that a .nef file contains all the image information captured by the camera's sensor, along with the image's metadata (the camera's identification and its settings, the lens used and other information).

"The primary benefit of writing images to the memory card in NEF format rather than TIFF or JPEG is that no in-camera processing for white balance, hue, tone and sharpening are applied to the NEF file; rather, those values are retained as instruction sets included in the file. You can change the instruction set as many times as you like without ever disturbing the original image's RAW data... processing a NEF file does not alter the original instruction set."

What you see on your tiny cameras display is a unprocessed, decoding of the raw files instructions. The same you will see when your chosen program decodes your image on your computer for display. In both cases your original data is not being changed, it's only being read.


Now I did some research after coming into this thread, specifically on Capture NX2 and it's features, and found nothing on it doing any sort of different "special" image enhancement on the BASIC raw conversion. What I DID find was NX2 uses NIK Software's U point technology. Making it very user friendly, and powerful. I have read about some bloating of file images processed in NX2, but if that isn't a big deal, it may be great for you and give you greater potential then some of the other programs... But it isn't unlocking any additional info from your file then what Lightroom will.

 

[Dominantly]

Maybe what he is saying is that if you use any other RAW editor besides Capture NX/NX2 that you will be losing all but about 40% of the camera settings. This is very true. If you use any other raw editor with your nikon .nef's, the program won't read all of the color data, white balance, etc... and you will have to work to get it where you want.

If you use NX/NX2, then when you initially open that raw image, it will look exactly the same as it did when you shot it. I believe some people get around this by getting color where they want in lightroom and then save it as a preset to apply to all their pictures. I personally use NX2 and couldn't be happier. There is very little that I need that it won't do and those few things I need can be taken care of in Gimp (such as cloning).

Oh, and I may be wrong on what he means, but it sounds like he means what I'm saying above.

I'm very interested in this... Can't you provide some documentation that states so?

 

[itznfb]

So here is a quick example... straight RAW dump to both PS and CNX2. Top one is PS and bottom one is CNX2. These images should be identical.

Example

As you begin to edit things like contrast you see an even bigger loss of color in Photoshop.

 

[Dominantly]

Loss is a bad word. You don't really lose anything you just have a more basic file if you will, to begin with. Which you can create in LR with a preset (or many), that will automatically take effect when you import.

 

[Overread]

I would argue that a slider in an editing tool will have different tollerances depending on which editer company you use. + 5 of contrast for example might be far less contrast increase in photoshop than it is in capture CNX2 - this might be a display that one is a finer control than the other (with the example of less contrast being added per unit on the slider).

It should be remembered that comparing different RAW processors is a tricky thing since to do it properly one has to be able to pull the best out of each processor otherwise its just showing a lack of understanding in one (or more) other tools whilst having more understanding of another. (that is general statment)

ps - very nice leopard shot

 

[itznfb]

Loss might be an inaccurate word... I guess my point is the color just doesn't seem accurate in Photoshop. I'm not sure what you mean with a more basic file. My understanding is that the RAW file should be pure data interpretation of the image captured by the sensor. So which ever app you load the RAW file into you should be looking at the same "data".

Thanks. It's actually a jaguar cub at the Akron Zoo. It hasn't grown into it's squared off jaguar head though so it does actually look like a leopard now that you mention it

 

[NateWagner]

well, the RAW processor will be looking at the same data... but how they convert it may be slightly different.

This is why it would be important for example to have two people one who is excellent with NX2 and one with PS or Lightroom etc. to have a go at it. Just to see how they are that way. (or I suppose one person could do both if he/she were strong enough with both programs).

To me the raw converters are kind of like two people reading the same story, or watching the same movie. The initial data is the same, but when they retell the story afterwards they will explain it slightly differently (of course these differences are relatively small when it comes to computers in comparison to humans).