(NEF, CaptureNX, Lightroom) Workflow & Software - Hard decisions & questions

Hello there,

I have recently upgraded from a Sony DSC-R1 to a Nikon D5000. Now I tried Nikons CaptureNX for the last few days, and I really love the whole "U-Point" thing. I feel that this is definitely my way of working - keeping it intuitive while at the same time leading to very nice results.

Until now I did my post-processing in CS3, which often felt just too "heavy"for the light tasks I mostly did. So I want to get away from CS if possible, and only dig it out when there is some very serious retouching to do.

Basically I am trying to decide between the following two options:

1) Use CaptureNX for the whole post-processing, and CS for maybe 5% of the images that need even further adjustment.

2) Use ViewNX to convert the NEF into TIFF (because Nikons own NEF-processor seems to be still the best around) and do any further post-processing in Lightroom, combined with the Lightroom-plugins from NikSoftware, which would give me that whole "U-Points"-universe there too.

In my opinion, Lightroom has the advantage of a better overall workflow and the possibility to get even more plugins, should I ever need to get additional ones. CaptureNX isn't really a workflow-optimized tool, and offers only one plugin-package.

Now there are some questions which are important for me in order to make my decision:

• Even if I decide for Lightroom, I will still do the NEF-conversion in ViewNX for optimal quality, which means I would work with TIFFs in Lightroom. From my understanding, 16-bit TIFFs have more than enough head room to hold all of the RAW-file's optical image information, so as long as the RAW-To-Tiff-convertion was done with correct settings, it shouldn't make any difference if I post-process the TIFF or the NEF - am I right?

As an example: Let's say I post-process a NEF in CaptureNX, and then I do the exact same processing to the TIFF-copy using Lightroom and the NikSoft plugins: Will the result be the same?

• NikSoftware has a quite attractive Lightroom-Plugin bundle - all their tools for 299$. Has anyone worked with those, and can tell me if they are worth the price? As fas as I see it, the Vivaz-plugin is basically the same as CaptureNX, but what about the rest of the bunch? Are they any good?

If there is virtually no quality difference between processing the NEF in CaptureNX and doing the same with the TIFF-copy in Lightroom, I will probably get Lightroom + NikSoft Plugin Bundle. I'd have the best of both worlds then - the nice useability and workflow management of Lightroom and the U-Point abilities of CaptureNX.

Thanks already for your advice, I appreciate it!

Markus

Why bother to convert to tiff in Capture NX and then move to Lightroom? That may be backwards. Start with the excellent Camera Raw processor in Lightroom to process the NEF files, which leaves them unchanged, and only adds a set of processing instructions. If you then want to do something with your photo(s), export from Lightroom as jpg or tiff or even NEF (depending on your need). That way you don't clutter your drive with large tiff files unless you really need them, and you remove one processing step. (This is also the workflow used in CS4. The NEF file is processed in Camera Raw, then exported to CS4, still as the NEF file, with the Camera Raw instructions.) If you need some feature of Capture NX, process and export from Lightroom, then load into Capture NX. It can be exported as NEF, so you haven't lost anything. The Camera Raw controls are easier to use than those in Capture NX for basic image processing anyway.

Hello!

Well, from what I read here and also in some other forums, the NEF-processor used by ViewNX/CaptureNX is still better than the competition, and while Lightroom 3 comes close, it's still not exactly as good. Mainly because Nikons software can work very precisely with the information stored in the NEF-file, while all the other tools don't have complete access to the format and it's values.

That's why I want to use ViewNX or CaptureNX at least for the RAW-conversion.

I have to agree with you though that some of the editing controls of CaptureNX are very strange from a useability-standpoint. Actually the whole application is a little crazy. But that doesn't really bother me. As I said, the main reasons for Lightroom and against CaptureNX would be the better all-in-one-workflow and the ability to use plugins.

My two cents:

I've used LR 3 Beta (have not yet bought as I too am struggling between LR 3 and Capture NX). My observations are:

when you undo changes in LR you must roll back sequentialy your changes while in NX you can select whatever change you want. IE if you made 10 changes and want to undo change # 5, you can do that in NX, but in LR you must undo changes 10,9,8,7,6, then 5.

Can anyone confirm this LR limitation??

2. I don't process hugh amts of shots, and tend to organize my photos by putting them in subject oriented directories. give this, I don't think I need LRs catalogues and I can use the simpler NX style of oepning a directory and there are my photos. I realize that this point is not a question of wbhich works better, but is a question of organization.

Also In LR, and I believe in NX, you can "pixel" edit in another application from LR (and NX?) - I like to use Elements as its more CS then I need.

Finally I find that with NX's U Point stuff I don't usually need to go to PSE; and then this means that for $125 I can get NX + U Point. WITH LR 3 it would cost $300 + $200 for viveza = $500,

My 2 cents

Gene Goodman said:

My two cents:

I've used LR 3 Beta (have not yet bought as I too am struggling between LR 3 and Capture NX). My observations are:

when you undo changes in LR you must roll back sequentialy your changes while in NX you can select whatever change you want. IE if you made 10 changes and want to undo change # 5, you can do that in NX, but in LR you must undo changes 10,9,8,7,6, then 5.

Can anyone confirm this LR limitation??

Click to expand...

That is in principle right, though with lateral thinking one can circumvent it.

For example you can copy-paste selected attributes (such as the local adjustments, the WB, the crop etc) between different history states of the same image. (If you go back to an earlier state, and subsequent states remain accessible (provided you don't perform any new adjustments that would lead the image along a brand new "history branch" from that point forward).

You could use this to transfer everything except selected attributes, or just selected attributes, and so on - or else Copy/Paste or Sync into virtual copies, that can act as placeholders or experimental variants for different settings along the way.

Gene Goodman said:

2. I don't process hugh amts of shots, and tend to organize my photos by putting them in subject oriented directories. give this, I don't think I need LRs catalogues and I can use the simpler NX style of oepning a directory and there are my photos. I realize that this point is not a question of wbhich works better, but is a question of organization.

Click to expand...

It is hard to grasp the advantages of free-structured image management, until one starts using it committedly, and gets past the uneasy "this is anarchy" feeling ;-). These advantages may never be sufficiently compelling or convincing, though, when pitted against the comfortable certainties of a rigid scheme. These are just available options, no right or wrong.

Gene Goodman said:

Also In LR, and I believe in NX, you can "pixel" edit in another application from LR (and NX?) - I like to use Elements as its more CS then I need.

Click to expand...

This generally means finalising the Raw conversion, or applying edits to a copy if working from JPG, and saving a pixel file on disk that the editor can alter. So subsequent operations back in LR refer to this new saved source file, as a new image. The starting (unedited) version is retained, still referring to your original source file. Or it is possible to send the source file itself to be directly edited (though not if Raw).

Gene Goodman said:

Finally I find that with NX's U Point stuff I don't usually need to go to PSE; and then this means that for $125 I can get NX + U Point. WITH LR 3 it would cost $300 + $200 for viveza = $500,

Click to expand...

All one needs is to be open about the options, realistic and proportionate about your actual (rather than ideal) requirements, and trial things for oneself - which unfortunately means the investment of time and attention.

RP

FWIW, the demosaic in NX2-process in Lightroom method you propose wouldn’t be worth it to me. Here’s why:

I happen to like to print up to 11x14 inches from my D300. Generally, the only larger prints I make are from drum-scanned 6x7 transparencies, so (although I have made some 16x20 prints from the D300) 11x14 is my target. If I can’t see a difference at that print size, I don’t care if I might be able to see a slight difference while squinting at my monitor.

I’ve seen posts from NX2 aficionados that suggest that Nikon’s intimate knowledge of their sensors allows Nik to brew a secret sauce for NEF conversion, and I have no reason to dispute that contention. However, you might note the versions of the software used to support the NX2 vs. Lightroom comments that you've read; the demosaic process in Lightroom 3 is new, and the sharpening in the recently-released version is improved even over that in the beta 2 version.) Now that Lightroom allows automatic CA and distortion correction for the Nikon lenses that I happen to own, I have a much harder time even imagining that I see any significant difference. To my eyes, the main difference remaining is simply that Lightroom has removed (well, at least reduced) the noise reduction in it’s demosaic process to a point where the Lightroom results are INITIALLY slightly noisier (and slightly sharper) than the Nik results. (Sharpening guru Gary Schewe, who worked with Adobe on Lightroom, discussed the removal of noise reduction from Lightroom's process.) Adobe scientist Eric Chan wrote (scroll down in the linked thread) “one can argue that ALL such demosaic methods (which basically includes all of the commercial ones) include some amount of noise reduction.” [ http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=23a9a961c842fea509941905a00a750d&showtopic=33419&st=0&p=272145&#entry272145] (I suppose that Bibble users might support the contention that applying noise reduction earlier is better than later, but Adobe went the other way; you might compare results.)

Accordingly, since Lightroom now includes a quite good noise reduction feature, the real question for me is more like this: How can I make a nice print, and how hard am I willing to work for it? I suppose I’m willing to work rather hard for special prints; however, for day-to-day stuff, I don’t mind at all if I can get good results quickly. Even for those few “special” prints, it seems that I’m able to get what I want more and more quickly as I grow more familiar with Lightroom.

One interesting feature, though, involves the U-point corrections versus the selection brush type of correction available in Lightroom (as well as in NX2). You may find that you’re more comfortable with one system than with the other; however, if you plan to simply demosaic in NX2 and process in Lightroom, you abandon that potential advantage.

OK I played a little more with my trial versions of Capture NX and Lightroom. I didn't do any RAW-conversion quality tests, but simply concentrated on the user interface and the development tools.

Gotta say, The virtual copy feature of Lightroom is really nice. I made a few b/w pictures out of my Sri Lanka travel images, and virtual copies helped me a lot there in terms of making the workflow super easy.

Also, after some "problems" with the brush tool I seem to understand it better now. I was just trying to be too exact on my first tries, trying to make the masked area exactly as big as the area I want to modify (as I normally do in CS5)...now that I realize I can be much more relaxed about those settings, post-processing is much faster.

I'll go out tomorrow and take some test shots with my D5000. If there won't be any visible disadvantages in LRs NEF-processing, I will probably dismiss CaptureNX and get Lightroom instead.

Thanks everyone, for your input and thought!

Markus

So now that most of my questions regarding LR and CaptureNX2 are covered, there is only one left from my original post. It's the "Tiff post-processing vs. NEF-post processing" question.

I already wrote today that my opinion regarding Lightroom has changed after toying around a little bit yesterday, and I start to see more advantages than disadvantages compared to CaptureNX.

Should I decide to use ViewNX to batch-create 16-bit TIFFs out of my NEF-files, and then post-process the TIFFs in Lightroom, are these TIFFs as good as the original NEF-files in terms of optical image information? For instance, if I decide to raise or lower the exposure value, does the TIFF have as much head room as the original NEF file?

If that's the case, I think I will use VievNX to do the nef-> tif step and do the post-processing in LR3.

Thanks!

Markus

Any processing that involves changing exposure curves - especially raising it in the shadows, and most particularly when extracting detail in the highlights - will almost in every case offer more possibilities working straight from the live Raw data, than from a TIFF previously converted from the raw data. This includes changing hue or White Balance, since that also involves changing exposure curves - relatively, between the separate RGB channels. Whether these wider possibilities are to be taken advantage of, is up to the user.

So - there are IMO big advantages to completing major adjustment as far as possible before the Raw conversion is finalised, which tends to mean, inside the converting program. That gives you a fully optimised image to take on into other software (such as for cloning retouch etc), which has not yet suffered any destructive editing at all.

But - even working inside software that is capable of direct-from-Raw working, the moment that one pushes the image out to an external editor, one in effect moves into different territory. The (currently configured) Raw conversion is locked in, and one is thereafter operating from a fixed TIFF only. This also applies to 3rd party editing plugins which might appear to be fully integrated, but are in fact functionally identical to using an external editor. So when comparing the specific use of (say) a Nik plugin inside Lightroom, against the use of an external editor that offers the same tools, the Raw vs Tiff aspects of each approach will be in truth no different.

RP

Sneets said:

Hello!

Well, from what I read here and also in some other forums, the NEF-processor used by ViewNX/CaptureNX is still better than the competition, and while Lightroom 3 comes close, it's still not exactly as good.

Click to expand...

That could be true.

Sneets said:

Mainly because Nikons software can work very precisely with the information stored in the NEF-file, while all the other tools don't have complete access to the format and it's values.

Click to expand...

That is certainly true.

But why not do an A/B/C comparison? You can download a trial version of LR3.

Import NEF photo into LR3. Adjust to taste. Export it for printing.
Import NEF into NX. Export it for printing.

Import NEF into NX, export as TIFF, Import the TIFF into LR3, adjust. Export it for printing.

Send the files for lab printing, compare them.

Hey there,

yeah I did some comparisons yesterday. The camera is set to its default settings.

• Just loading the NEF-file into both applications, on Capture NX the image looks more vivid and a little less "foggy"...so I guess somehow there's more saturation and contrast applied to it. But even after playing with the settings in Lightroom for half an hour, I couldn't make it look like in Capture NX...no idea what the trick is.

• When I change the picture profile to "D2X" in Capture NX and in Lightroom, the images look, in my opinion, almost identical. So Adobe did a great job reconstructing the "D2X" profiles. Unfortunately, none of those DX2 profiles does look as good as CaptureNX's standard profile, at least with the pictures I used...so that's no big helpf for me.

I'll have to do more testing, I guess. The LR3 trial version is still running for almost three weeks, so I have some time left!

If change #5, for example, increases Exposure +1, simply readjust the Exposure back to 0. No need to undo every change.

George

Gene Goodman said:

when you undo changes in LR you must roll back sequentialy your changes while in NX you can select whatever change you want. IE if you made 10 changes and want to undo change # 5, you can do that in NX, but in LR you must undo changes 10,9,8,7,6, then 5.

Click to expand...

Sneets said:

Hey there,

yeah I did some comparisons yesterday. The camera is set to its default settings.

• When I change the picture profile to "D2X" in Capture NX and in Lightroom, the images look, in my opinion, almost identical. So Adobe did a great job reconstructing the "D2X" profiles. Unfortunately, none of those DX2 profiles does look as good as CaptureNX's standard profile, at least with the pictures I used...so that's no big helpf for me.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me that you want to find out what settings (in LR) are the default settings in NX and then make a profile for that.

I don't know NX (as I'm a Canon guy), but I know in Canon software the software "knows" some camera settings (like sharpening and saturation), while LR does not (exept for WB), perhaps there's a way to look.
--
All in my humble opionion of course!

If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

AdriaanMeijer said:

I don't know NX (as I'm a Canon guy), but I know in Canon software the software "knows" some camera settings (like sharpening and saturation), while LR does not (exept for WB), perhaps there's a way to look.

Click to expand...

That's right, LR does not read many of the proprietary in-camera settings. Since I don't pay any attention to these in-camera settings, anyway, that is no problem for me.

In order to bring the initial treatment of images closer to what one wants, there are three means: the camera profile, the Develop processing defaults, and a develop preset applied during import. The camera profile will not always do the whole job, and it is relatively hard to adjust for individual preference. So if (say) one wishes that images opened from a particular camera had got a little Clarity or slightly higher Detail on the sharpening, or less Blacks, or whatever, then one would simply adjust those things and update the Lightroom defaults for that camera. That tweaks the starting appearance of future imported images that were taken by it.

Applying a develop preset during Import works well, but does not automatically distinguish images taken with one camera, from images taken with another, nor does it necessarily distinguish Raw from JPG - and one would probably not want to apply the same "individual preference" adjustment in these different cases.

RP