The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Capture NX2

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
As I posted in Imaging Processing:

NX is now NX2 with new browser and supposedly faster.

60 day trial at NikonUSA

Bob
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I really deplore Nikon for selling these for cash.

Older NX users need to pay money to "upgrade". :thumbdown:

They are not the brightest image processing programs either.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Yes, I agree. I've paid for NX but I won't do it again unless it provides a significant improvement.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There
I've long since decided not to use camera specific raw development software. I'm aware that it often produces the best results, but the complications of running different software for different cameras and having separate cataloguing software is simply too much. Added to which most of them are intolerably slow.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I do have to agree that there are too many choices for Raw file development.

However, while I have Lightroom 2, Adobe Capture Raw for PS CS3, Capture One Pro and CO 4.11, Flexcolor 4.8.6 and Phocus 1.0 not to mention DXO beta 5 for Mac it does seem somewhat incongruous that we will jump almost any hurdle to have the newest hardware ( ie Nikon D3 ) but do not always maximize the possibility of raw development for that capture device.

It is hard however to maintain even a small modicum of proficiency with the
software when it is as unintuitive as Capture NX seemed to be. Hopefully NX2 will be an improvement...

I do think that charging for a major upgrade in program...4 to 5 not 4 to 4.11a3beta is not unreasonable...I mean really $89 upgrade for a $5000 capture device seems a minimal expense...maybe it is the fact that we cannot sell off the old goods that makes it seem unreasonable.

I tend to use Lightroom, Phocus and CS3 for the majority of my files as they are the most mainstream for the devices and have a huge base of readily accessible knowledge base.

NX2 will be reserved for those rare captures that are worth the extra effort and time....now I just need to find the time to capture them.

with regards,

Bob
 

jonoslack

Active member
I do have to agree that there are too many choices for Raw file development.

However, while I have Lightroom 2, Adobe Capture Raw for PS CS3, Capture One Pro and CO 4.11, Flexcolor 4.8.6 and Phocus 1.0 not to mention DXO beta 5 for Mac it does seem somewhat incongruous that we will jump almost any hurdle to have the newest hardware ( ie Nikon D3 ) but do not always maximize the possibility of raw development for that capture device.

It is hard however to maintain even a small modicum of proficiency with the
software when it is as unintuitive as Capture NX seemed to be. Hopefully NX2 will be an improvement...

I do think that charging for a major upgrade in program...4 to 5 not 4 to 4.11a3beta is not unreasonable...I mean really $89 upgrade for a $5000 capture device seems a minimal expense...maybe it is the fact that we cannot sell off the old goods that makes it seem unreasonable.

I tend to use Lightroom, Phocus and CS3 for the majority of my files as they are the most mainstream for the devices and have a huge base of readily accessible knowledge base.

NX2 will be reserved for those rare captures that are worth the extra effort and time....now I just need to find the time to capture them.

with regards,

Bob
HI Bob
I used to use a number of programs, and I had an excellent filing system, with different folders for original / modified tiff / printable version / web version / thumbnail, which I tried to handle with iview (and others). If I wanted a black and white version, then they had a different name prefix and existed in all the folders . . . as did special crops etc.

It took huge amounts of disc space and a great deal of aggravation.

Nowadays I use Aperture (I may shell out to Viveza, or to Photoshop or other software). I still use the same file structure, but it only contains one folder for the original file (kept outside the Aperture Library). My storage requirements have dropped dramatically, everything is properly catalogued and easy to find.

Last weekend I did a concert in difficult lighting conditions in a church. The photography was one thing. The post processing was all done and dusted within an hour, and the website was finished, uploaded, and the client advised within another hour.

As for not maximising the D3 by using their software, the D3 does very nicely in Aperture, as does the M8 and my Olympus cameras. If I have to use 3 different sets of software to 'maximise' output (namely NX, Capture and Studio), then my skills are spread, and I will become less efficient. Added to which time is definitely money around here - paying £85 for an update to NX is one thing. Spending an extra 10 hours a month processing files is something quite different (20 times as much per month?).
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Jono,

I have to agree...Lightroom has become a favorite for quick and easy
sorting and development. Aperture would probably work as well. Time
is of course the limiting factor to most of our endeavors.

Maybe I need to kill the beeper and spend a little more time out of the operating theatre...if only.

Bob
 

sc_john

Active member
I also have LR, ACR, Phase One C1 Pro and CX. While I agree that LR/ACR can deal very well with the average image, my side-by-side tests of higher ISO images (>1600 from a D300) shows that CaptureNX does a significantly better job... particularly with noise reduction, retention of details and recovery of shadows. For initial editing, filing, keywording, and casual/average processing I use LR for it's "do-it-all" convenience. However, CaptureNX does have a place in my workflow... notwithstanding I agree that the NX interface is clunky and it is slow. Have just downloaded NX2 trial, but haven't yet tried it; hopefully interface/speed is improved.

John
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
I have ACR, Phase One C1 Pro, SPP (for the Foveon chip) and NX; the last I refuse to use. It's not yet "prime time" and time IS money.

My workflow centres around ACR these days, running on a quad-core G5. I can get the looks I want in this software---and the *possibility* that I might get---perhaps---5% improvement with NX is not sufficient to make me include it for work.

Welcome Lloyd; I am in Vancouver running a workshop right now, so send my regards from a bit closer! Cheers to all, KL
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I understand the point of view of the nay-sayers here about every version of Nikon capture up until now - however, you might want to try the trial because this version is FFFFAAAASSSSTTTT. There is no comparison.

The dust removal tool is excellent. Highlight recovery kills the abilities of ACR etc. On my MacBookPro they've exorcised the slowness demons.

In terms of colour fidelity, it is superb compared to ACR & Aperture and you can readily see the difference.

I do agree about the workflow aspects though - Aperture is my tool of choice again now and I can highly recommend getting a copy of Vivezza for it if you want essentially almost a one-stop solution.
 
Top