NX2 vs LR2.1 side by side IQ : no contest?

I have been trying to convince myself to kiss the ugly (and slow) duckling, NX2, goodbye, and move on to newer things. But, try as I might, I cannot get other RAW converters to produce imagery from d700 NEFs that rival the NX2 results. I have invested many hours in LightRoom, experimenting, reading forums, and then experimenting some more. Buoyed by claims that the new DNG Camera Profiles "are pretty much the same" as what the in camera picture modes deliver, I have set out to pin down a new workflow using ACR/LR.

Herewith a typical example of what I get. The shot is untouched, other than converting to JPG and sRGB. You can clearly see the ADL benefit in the NX2 shot, sure, it biases it. But the point is that this is how I shoot, with ADL on normal. WB was set to a uniform K value. In LR I used the defaults with the D2X Mode I Profile, in NX2 it was the picture mode out of cam. Don't worry too much about colour, that is not the point, and the WB is off anyways.



But these images do not tell the whole story. Once you start "working" them, it just seems that NX2 handles sharpening better and that the recovery/protection of highlights/shadows is also significantly above that of LR/ACR.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

Wern

The is one major 'bug' in your comparision, which is using ADL when shooting RAW.

What I mean is that lightroom cannot read and process ADL data stored in NEF
file, so considering that ADL underexposes your image and the does its magic,
what LR gives you is underexposed RAW withtout the magic.

If you want truly to compare these two shot your image without ADL.

Thanks for the post. I'm also trying to ditch NX2 in favor of ACR in CS3 and have wondered if the differences are significant. In your samples, NX2 does a better job of preserving detail where the straps lie on the shoulder, but is also seems that the NX2 rendering is a bit warmer. Have you tried increasing the recovery slider and warming things up in ACR, or are you just evaluating performance at default settings?
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

I also favor processing my images with NX2. The final results are good and the software is user friendly. And Nik filter plug-ins are now available for NX2, which are great tools.
--
Kenny Wilder
Navarre Beach, Florida
http://pbase.com/kennywilder

I've given up trying to get great skintones from LR, PS, and Aperture. NX2 just gets it right, without having to do a lot of tweaking. Yes, NX2 is clunky and slow, but if I'm PP'ing a picture with people in it, I'll use NX2. Landscapes, etc., the other apps are fine.

Active D-Lighting. If you use this when shooting your RAW Capture NX is the ONLY
software, that can read and apply all Active D-Lighting data from your NEF file.

ANd if you haven't read turning ADL on makes your campera to underexpose

your image and the do its magic. So basically comparing NEFs shot with ADL on is a no sense, as there always will be a difference, as third party converters will show
you that underexposed image without the magic that Capture NX does.

Yes, correct. Herein lies the catch. I want the ADL look in contrasting scenes. Nikon engineers did well here, and it does a very gentle increase in DR. It can be switched off if you shot with it on in post (only in NX2). So, the reality is that I cannot retrieve a (sometimes) crucial component of how I captured the image if I do not use NX2.

Wern

kichu1979 said:

The is one major 'bug' in your comparision, which is using ADL when
shooting RAW.

What I mean is that lightroom cannot read and process ADL data stored
in NEF
file, so considering that ADL underexposes your image and the does
its magic,
what LR gives you is underexposed RAW withtout the magic.

If you want truly to compare these two shot your image without ADL.

Click to expand...

Well, that makes an even stronger case for using NX2 and benefitting from the added DR.

kichu1979 said:

Active D-Lighting. If you use this when shooting your RAW Capture NX
is the ONLY
software, that can read and apply all Active D-Lighting data from
your NEF file.

ANd if you haven't read turning ADL on makes your campera to underexpose
your image and the do its magic. So basically comparing NEFs shot
with ADL on is a no sense, as there always will be a difference, as
third party converters will show
you that underexposed image without the magic that Capture NX does.

Click to expand...

True, however what I would be interested in is if Adobe camera profiles
do match the Nikon ones from NX, so a comparision show without ADL
just as above would be more than appreciated

Please

wern777 said:

Yes, correct. Herein lies the catch. I want the ADL look in
contrasting scenes. Nikon engineers did well here, and it does a
very gentle increase in DR. It can be switched off if you shot with
it on in post (only in NX2). So, the reality is that I cannot
retrieve a (sometimes) crucial component of how I captured the image
if I do not use NX2.

Click to expand...

Pleasure Radu

I have not tweaked in any way, just the defaults. As mentioned, for images that require sharpening or highlight recovery, NX2 just seems like the best tool.

Wern

Thanks, I didn't realize NX2 preserved the in-camera Active D-Lighting. I had assumed that setting was only applied to in-camera jpeg conversion. Will have to experiment with that. I know, I know...RTFM.
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

The better detail and control of highlights where the straps lie on the shoulder is probably due to ADL.

Radu Tenenbaum said:

Thanks for the post. I'm also trying to ditch NX2 in favor of ACR
in CS3 and have wondered if the differences are significant. In your
samples, NX2 does a better job of preserving detail where the straps
lie on the shoulder, but is also seems that the NX2 rendering is a
bit warmer. Have you tried increasing the recovery slider and
warming things up in ACR, or are you just evaluating performance at
default settings?
--

Click to expand...

Interesting indeed. Had to adjust the settings that come alive when ADL is turned off to match the LR defaults.

Wern

wern777 said:

I have been trying to convince myself to kiss the ugly (and slow)
duckling, NX2, goodbye, and move on to newer things. But, try as I
might, I cannot get other RAW converters to produce imagery from d700
NEFs that rival the NX2 results. I have invested many hours in
LightRoom, experimenting, reading forums, and then experimenting some
more. Buoyed by claims that the new DNG Camera Profiles "are pretty
much the same" as what the in camera picture modes deliver, I have
set out to pin down a new workflow using ACR/LR.

Herewith a typical example of what I get. The shot is untouched,
other than converting to JPG and sRGB. You can clearly see the ADL
benefit in the NX2 shot, sure, it biases it. But the point is that
this is how I shoot, with ADL on normal. WB was set to a uniform K
value. In LR I used the defaults with the D2X Mode I Profile, in NX2
it was the picture mode out of cam. Don't worry too much about
colour, that is not the point, and the WB is off anyways.



But these images do not tell the whole story. Once you start
"working" them, it just seems that NX2 handles sharpening better and
that the recovery/protection of highlights/shadows is also
significantly above that of LR/ACR.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

Wern

Click to expand...

--

I've been struggling with the same thing.....but I have to tell you the LR shot you posted looks better to my eye than the NX2 shot. The NX2 shot makes her look pasty.

Len

Sure K, see below.

kichu1979 said:

Please

wern777 said:

Yes, correct. Herein lies the catch. I want the ADL look in
contrasting scenes. Nikon engineers did well here, and it does a
very gentle increase in DR. It can be switched off if you shot with
it on in post (only in NX2). So, the reality is that I cannot
retrieve a (sometimes) crucial component of how I captured the image
if I do not use NX2.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Someone who uses NX everyday for years may not get the best from ACR, someone who uses ACR everyday for years may not get the most from NX.

In a recent thread where the NEFs were openly distributed to allow experienced users of any RAW converter to process the image (including NX & ACR/LR/PS users) and post their best work, many were able to produce outstanding images. See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29657326

Both NX and ACR showed very well. And candidly, there were more than a few horrible conversions posted as well (some by our most outspoken contributors). Bottom line, those that tell you that one converter or another is trash just don't know the product well enough.

IMHO the loyalty to software expressed in many dpreview threads is based more on personal familiarity, length of their experience, and UI preference than it is on valid scientific testing and IQ comparisons. If it is based on scientific comparisons, few ever share them like you've done. And few here can claim to be masters of more than one RAW converter.

Some who shoot fewer pics and are willing to tinker more than me may like NX better. I used NX for many years and gave up on it. I tolerated the slow performance and bugs in NX until I realized I needed DAM (#1 clue: images were getting lost). That opened the door to changes in my workflow. I researched the DAM market, decided Lightroom was a strong player, I liked the simple workflow with LR & PS (versus needing 3 different software packages), and I took the time to learn to use LR/ACR. After a short while I could produce excellent results in much less time than with NX. FWIW, once I passed that point I've never used NX again. I still have it, just never felt the need to use it.

Cheers,
JB

If you are using the default conversion from each piece of software, then why don't you just use the default jpegs right out of the camera. This reminds me of the comparisons between the Sony a900 and Nikon D3x with OOC jpegs - pointless. These high end pieces of software are designed for people who want to get the most from their images, and ACR and NX2 both allow that with proper time and understanding of the adjustable parameters and features.

I personally tried NX2 for a few weeks, and found I could mimic the look in LR easily, although I did not prefer it. Also, it is then my choice to adjust the shadows in LR instead of having ADL do it for me. The same information is captured to RAW, so it is just a matter of moving a slider in LR. Plus ADL intentionally underexposes and then boosts, I don't want improper exposure as you can notice in your image.

I don't see any greater detail at all in the NX2 conversion. In fact, the skin looks heavily smoothed, showing much less detail. Whoever sees more detail in the straps or pearls is seeing things, the absolute bottom of the pearls are sharper in the LR image. The fact that the NX2 shot is slightly underexposed gives it more texture and color in the strap that is all.

Shooting this shot with better lighting (some moderate fill flash for the eyes especially), would have resulted in a better shot. The PP software options are nearly identical in the hands of a professional, and not what is learned from comparison.
--
WPPI, PPA, NPS

The LR2 looks better to me than the Nx2. The NX2 looks to be a bit lower contrast.
I use them both.

GO

Actually, anything you set on the camera, you get in an NX2 NEF file. It's just mostly in the EXIF data, so you can turn it off.

ADL can be turned off in NX2, so it is done entirely as EXIF, not changing shutter and aperture. I suspect it uses exposure compensation, which is why you see the reduced exposure in lightroom, since that's one of the few things that probably gets applied from the EXIF. But any other EXIF changes made by ADL don't get translated to lightroom.
--
Cheers,
Eric