Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon Capture - where's the rage?

Go to last post
D

Dante S

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
297
Reaction score
12
Location
US
So much energy is being expended here on worrying about easily corrected (or maybe imaginary) D200 problems like back focus (hardware), banding (firmware), etc. But I am frankly surprised at how little vitriol is saved for Nikon's absolutely dismal post-processing software. Where's the rage about that?

-- Are people just shooting JPGs and living with it?

-- Or are they resigned (as I am) to using third-party batch software to make up for Nikon's poor programming, slow operation, and impractical controls?

I am a little surprised that people keep clamoring for a full-frame, 23mp sensor when Nikon can't seem to master the programming for efficiently processing 12-16mb NEF files (maybe they should hire some of the software engineers who did Kodak's software?).

And I never thought that Photoshop was a particularly efficient vehicle for raw conversion until I spent a lot of 'quality' time with Nikon Capture. Lightroom is a step ahead, except for its oddball interface (clearly Adobe never had two screens in mind when it designed the "main window" concept).

Thoughts?
 
I don't know why so many people seem to have problems with Nikon Capture. It's worked very well for me.

I started using it (v3.x) with a Windows 98SE system running at 550MHz with 384MB of memory and it worked very well.

I'm now using it (v4.4.x) with a Windows XP Home system with a 3 GHz CPU and 2GB of memory and it still works very well.

I normally use the "Batch" feature to convert to JPG after making initial adjustments to a single NEF and using those settings in all subsequent images in that folder. Of course, it's nice if all of the shots in that folder were taken in similar lighting but that's not always the case and very rarely do I have to go back to an image and adjust it independently from the others in that batch.

I also use CS2 but rely more on NC for the majority of my work.
--
Jim Jeter
Aliso Viejo, CA
http://www.pbase.com/jim_jeter/root
 
That way I don't need to worry or complain about NC. But it does produce the best output, if only I could use it.

I use the Nikon NEF conversion plug-in for CS2.

Of course I will now be flamed to oblivion but what the heck. Thats just the way I do it.

--
'There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.' - Ansel Adams
http://www.pbase.com/nikonsrme
 
I think NC 4.4 is just fine. Yes it could be a bit faster but it's not too bad anyway and gives you the best basic processing of NEFs. The rest, as some artistic etc, you do in PS anyway.

I only wish they would somehow reduce those huge tools pallette and make it to eat less screen space.
 
What this forum needs is more RAGE.

In Plankton-from-SpongeBob voice: We shall bring NIKON to their KNEES!

Have a nice day ;)

--
Z-Man
 
NC 4.4 works fine .....

Plus it leaves you time to take a small holiday in between each render! :P

I was actually very near to returning my camera and giving up on Nikon Digital because this software is so dreadful.

Adobe are just as useless as they are not releasing a NEF plug-in for earlier versions of Photoshop. And CS only runs on WinXP, which I don't own.

Crazy - Lots of downloading pirated software for me this week then.
 
at first I was appaled with how slow NC worked, and was embarrassed when showing it to others. But then I got my own laptop, nothing special: pentium 4 2.8ghz with 1.27 gigs of ram and it worked fine. Even faster after a couple of updates. I've used ACR and Capture 1 but always comeback to NC. The odd thing in my experience is that it seems to work better on Windows than on Macs???
--
Harry
 
People get angry about the strangest things. With so many things in this world of greater importance than a image processor to be angry about why be enraged at all. If you don't like it and find it useful then don't buy it. I use both CS2 and NC and I personally find NC an excellant tool which provides excellant results.
 
I personally have never fallen in love with a piece of software ;-) but I do use NC and find it has better results than CS2 which I also use in post processing.
 
Is DxO Optics supporting D200?
I am using NC and it is the best raw converter.
Slow but efficient.
Jeean Claude
 
I use Capture and it does nice raw conversions. Yeah, it does somethings very slowly but I put up with it, it's faster than scanning film.
 
I fully agree with you, if you don't like it don't by it or use it. I can't understand why people are asking for a rage.

I've tried a lot of preview programs to find out if they were better for me and decided to stay with APS and NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top