Reading mode: Light Dark

Why NX2 and not Photoshop?

Go to last post
Some interesting comments here. FWIW I think it's a better RAW converter than ACR (why the comparison with "Photoshop"). Try the evaluation download (if they're still offering it) and see what you think.

What I do find REALLY interesting are the comments about the lens distortion parameter auto adjustments in NX2. When I first got it (bundled with a D700) I also tried DxO, which incorporates a comprehensive set of distortion corrections mapped for specific lenses - including the three Nikon 2.8 zooms which I have - and I posted a question somewhere about why this brilliant feature wasn't incorporated into NX2, at least for Nikon's own lenses.

I still don't know what this situation amounts to.

Clearly there's a default geometric distortion setting in NX2 which is applied when the checkbox is selected, however nowhere do I see a list of lenses for which these corrections have actually been mapped for specific lenses (which in the case of DxO, as far as I recall, include ca, vignetting, geometry - at various focal lengths, apertures and focal distances). Clearly no single setting is going to be applicable across the range of possible lens parameters. If the geometric distortion is already mapped, and the ca taken care of automatically, why do we also have to adjust the vignetting/falloff by slider?

So, does anyone actually KNOW how NX2 works in this respect? It certainly doesn't seem to be written down anywhere.

I liked DxO a lot but having ACR and NX2 (free) already I couldn't justify the expense, even at the discount applying at that time. I'd certainly recommend trying it to anyone using Nikon lenses.

A pity that NX2 is disgracefully bug-ridden and has such a laughably clunky UI for such a high profile application.

Roy
--
Trying...
 
While someone has mentioned the convenience of saving the image manipulation changes right in the original image (NEF file), I don't believe anyone has mentioned the savings in filesize or the number of files. NEF files are 1/3 to 1/6 the size of Photoshop (PSD) files. If you have thousands of images, that really adds up.

Secondly, third party programs such as Lightroom create sidecar files to go with each image. So if you want to backup you image or move it to another location you have to make sure the sidecar files go along with the manipulated images. This can be a nightmare. Now you have at least 3 files, the NEF, the PSD, and the sidecar. With NX2 you just have one small NEF file. Plain and simple. I like it that way. And with 20,000 images on my computer, simple is good.
--
Steve

 
...for the foreseeable future, then you owe it to yourself to give NX a shot at becoming your RAW processor. There's a reason some have slogged through the learning curve and naysayers to make NX their primary imaging engine, and that reason usually comes down to quality.

After every couple iterations of ACR, I take an NEF and do the same basic conversions in both systems and compare the outputs. I've done this ever since NX 1.0 was released and while ACR has improved a bit there is never really any comparison between the two. Tonal depth, microcontrast, and recognition of camera settings all place NX far above ACR in my opinion.

Plus, now that I've become proficient with the selection tools of NX, I like using the + - brushes even more that the Upoint technology. I can make more precise selections faster than with photoshop.

If you don't need to batch images in a hurry to make a living, NX is just fine. The speed vs. quality issue will linger, but the speed isn't as bad as some say and the quality of conversion is better than you might think.

When you need to manipulate pixels (composite work, cloning, etc.) just save the NEF as a TIFF and finish up in Photoshop.

--
Paul

“The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love”
Henry Scougal
 
cjep1 said:
The U-point selection is far the most intuitive partial selection tool I have ever used (and I am an very experiences PS user). I find the NX2 GUI useful, when keeping in mind that it is not a copy of Photoshop - some of NX2 is actually smarter than PS.
Click to expand...
I agree with this analogy.

Aside the NEF conversion...the U-Point technology (especially the new "selection" functions - that Viveza does not have) are much better than Photoshop and make the old traditonal type mask/layering a snap.

Shots like this...which took just a few seconds to create in NX2
http://kvincentphotography.ca/p394212103/hb6a98dd#hb6a98dd

http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h200870c2#h200870c2

http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals

The NX2 interface is simple/easy to master and only takes a few hours to familiarize oneself with it. In comparison, Photoshop is a bohemoth, and actually far more intimidating and difficult to learn - from a newbie perspective.

I do acknowledge that Adobe ACR has made a lot of progress over the past 18 months or so...and that the Capture NX Nef conversion is no longer much better - like it used to be. However, I still think it does have the slight edge - despite the ACR profiles etc.

The only issue for me, is yes...NX2 is a resource hog and at times operates rather slow - depending upon how many different NEF versions are saved within the "same" NEF file, and/or the number of adjustment applications applied.

Even multiple usage of the 'retouch' clone tool can slow it down...which is rather annoying.

NIK definitely need to pull their finger out and fix the performance issue.

KEV
 
ACR often gives very different colour rendition than NX2. NX2 also gives much better grain than ACR, with better gradients, detail, and much better skin tones. Neither LR or NX2 can match PS (with Noise Ninja) for sharpening of grainy images. In general, I find NX2 painfully slow and clunky compared to PS/LR. For my work, I like Lightroom. Occasionally, I'll use NX2 to export a 16-bit TIFF with no noise reduction or other adjustments, and edit in PS.

The upshot: if you want the most efficient workflow, go with LR. If you want ultimate control, stay with PS. If you want the highest quality raw conversions, nothing comes close to NX2.
 
Yes only to convert the Nefs files, NX, certainly is the best.

black/white points, etc,, I still use PS, the curves tool in PS, certainly is a much more powerful tool then the equivelant in NX.

For Nikon files! stay clear of ACR and LR, use NX.
 
That's why I like NX - it's like having a Nikon inside your computer, or making the computer behave like a Nikon
 
I hate the way Lightroom store files stuff in a catalog you can't just copy and move. You have to export and import. With CNX2, everything is inside the NEF. I've got my original and my "developed" images where I know I won't lose. I just wish every versions inside the NEF is a first class image in the browser.
 
When I tried the NX2 trial on my brand-new laptop, it claimed that the trial had already expired. That was the final straw.

The amount of power it needs is a joke. I also thought it a poor show that in order to be able to convert the latest RAW files, you have to upgrade to NX2. At least with ACR, you can use the DNG converter.

I find NX so unstable and unusable that it actually puts me off Nikon cameras.
 
Gah! here again, following the fun discussions ;'-)

re: NX2 slowness i'm pretty sure the code is slow and that's because the demosaic is looking at larger neighboring samples to calculate color. I guess this would help interpreting signal near to clipping e.g. asking "so where is the actual highlight?".

also, throwing cpu cores at NX2 doesn't work. Pity that to get the highest rated speeds, procs are premium priced by leas and bounds. Just like a lot of 3D and cad/cam apps are largely single threaded until render, NX2 simply doesn't make much use of additional cores. To offset this and somewhat offset the expense of high clock cpu parts, get a overclocked single proc machine from someone reliable. Basically overclock and add in SSD and things get much nicer.

How goes Fred? Hope all's well. Was catching up on rest weekend, so sorry no 'mail.

cheers!
  • kirbs
frederic fahraeus said:
Ditto!

much better quality, everything, doesnt clip the channels either. Slowish on computer but worth every minute.
Click to expand...
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
guessing 16bit TIFF output, old press style, dies hard? :)

i like much of NX2, handy for demos and conceptuals, but it doesn't work when you got to pass files on for someone else to work on . .

--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
I have to admit that I was not a fan of NX - the operating metaphors and workflow were just too "out there" for me. Having grown up with photoshop I felt (and still do to a great extent) more comfortable with the entire PS UI and approach to editing.

Enter NX2. OK - the UI is definitely strange for the die-hard PS user - but it doesn't take a genius to learn it. I have a fairly fast PC (not a screamer, but a nice one) and the speed of NX2 is just fine. I've heard nightmare stories on this board - but have not experienced any of them.

The quality output from raw files is much better with NX2 than with PS or LightRoom. I did one experiment with a horribly exposed image and NX2 rescued it beautifully. The best I could do with about 30 minutes of work with Photoshop was either dull, or too contrasty. That convinced me to buy a copy of NX2.

Still though - there are many many things PS has in its quiver that are not available in NX2. My take is that both are really important

NX2 for raw conversion, rescue and a generally excellent workflow for processing photographs. For 82% of your work you can go from shooting to delivery with NX2...

PS for when you need to do extensive editing and anything you need to do beyond processing the photograph. Cloning out people, changing the background, artistic expression(lighting effects, filtering), framing, etc.

So - I like both.

Lightroom has been a disapointment for me. I got it because I wanted something to catalog all my images. Adobe threw in so much redundant editing and processing capabilities, and cataloging is so complex that I find I've become a little frightened of it. LR is really just another chapter of Adobe trying to fill some sort of percieved marketing gap in their software with another program. And another poster is correct - it creates all these sidecar files - what a silly concept when they have their own PSD and DNG formats that could act as an envelope for all that sidecar flotsam. In fact LR has cause them to hurt the workflow in my opinion. For example the raw processor (available in both PS and LR) does a nice job with many things (not nearly as well as NX) but it offers certain features in a workflow that ratchets forward. You can do a very nice and easy post-edit vignette control and then move it to PS, but if you decide to do further editing (which is why you move it to PS) then there's no way to go back to use the vignette control - you have to do it an entirely different way in PS.

How stupid! Raw controls should be fully integrated into PS, not be a stage you pass through.

Des
 
I am not a PS user, instead is using Apecture. I have yet to compare between Apecture against NX2.

Of course, I am using the Mac and should be upgrading to their latest OS.

Also, NX2 have a few add-on should I consider the complete package?
--
Richard Lee
 
Interesting that no-one has made any response to my question about this. It's not the first time I've asked and it's not the first time that no one has come up with an answer.

I'd say it doesn't. DxO does. NX2 should, shouldn't it?
--
Trying...
 
Hi there!

Jeez! eloquent as usual are you! I sometimes feel I need to doctorate in English to keep up with you.

Doing fine thanks, had a good summer but the skies are getting darker all the time and soon were in for winter. Blast! and bugger!

Oh well never mind, speak to you soon.

Fred
 
That was eloquent??!

I merely rant and complain most of the time about things i have to deal with. I prefer the whole getting even, and even getting a bit mad so as to clear my brain for hopefully better things :')

Ooooh, i really had wanted to type in "bugger" earlier. I thought it wasn't possible! What's going on?

Same bloody thoughts about the early darkness.

We had the wettest darkest summer here on record, i can count sunny days on one hand. Which is why you will shortly find me dealing with "seasonal adjusted disorder" in a snug bar near you :-)

(Anticipate at that point some fresh rants on fast primes again. Nikon, ya hear me??)

incidentally have you heard of the "Fake Chuck Westfall" blog? check it out with a quick google, funniest i read for ages and i'm not being partisan with my appreciation.

'till soon Fred, & all best from me,
  • john
frederic fahraeus said:
Hi there!

Jeez! eloquent as usual are you! I sometimes feel I need to doctorate in English to keep up with you.

Doing fine thanks, had a good summer but the skies are getting darker all the time and soon were in for winter. Blast! and bugger!

Oh well never mind, speak to you soon.

Fred
Click to expand...
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
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