Old debate updated: Capture NX for D300

[Loa]

Hello,

If things go well I should be ordering a new D300 in the next few weeks.

With my current D70 I looked at NX and after laughing/crying over its design I happily reverted back to ACR.

But now the D300 has so many different setting possibilities that NX's advantage in being able to import/recognize them seems more valuable. So for you lucky D300 users: is it?

And if I plan on shooting RAW and *not* use NX, am I abandoning a big chunk of the D300's strengths?

Thanks

Loa

[brian.austin]

Shouldn't this be in the Nikon forum?

[cyclohexane]

I've been using Capture NX for my RAW conversions due to the fact that it'll recognize in-camera settings, which saves me time: I just convert it in NX setting things like WB if needed and finish editing in Photoshop- which is usually adding a tad more contrast and sharpening. In my limited use of ACR with D300 files, however, I have found that ACR handles the D300 files pretty well. I'd give ACR a shot before abandoning it.

If I can find a way to consistently get "Nikon color" without massive tweaking in ACR, I'm abandoning Capture NX, especially since Capture NX v2.0 is a $110 USD upgrade.

[Loa]

Hello,

Move it if you want. My question is Nikon specific, but I thought the same principles would equally apply for most other recent DSLRs.

Loa

[Loa]

Thx for your input Michael.

How about my second question? I've heard so many good things about the D3 and D300 picture control settings. Wouldn't using RAW and not Capture NX be a waste?

Loa

[cyclohexane]

Wouldn't using RAW and not Capture NX be a waste?

I personally use a modified version of the "Neutral" picture control, which looks pretty close to what my Camera RAW defaults are. For work we edit our JPEGs, and my tweaks to "Neutral" get the images pretty close to the settings we're using on my D2HS and the work D2H cameras, which simplified the workflow a good deal.

Picture Controls are great for JPEGs out of the camera, but I figure that if I'm doing PP I might as well just have some neutral data to work with. Old habits die hard, I guess.

[Loa]

Thanks. Once I get my hands on a D300, I'll have to do some exploring on my own! Maybe even get back to shooting jpegs.

Loa

[cyclohexane]

Maybe even get back to shooting jpegs.

Seriously, compared to the D70, the JPEG output of the D300 is positively amazing. I used to shoot even dumb snapshots in RAW because I wasn't overly fond of the D70/D2H JPEGs, but the D300's JPEGs are more than adequate for anything I'm using them for.

RAW is still king for ultimate quality, but the JPEGs of the D300 are darn good.

[Loa]

Great! Another reason to justify the expense!

Loa

[cyclohexane]

the D300's JPEGs are more than adequate for anything I'm using them for.

BTW, when I say this, I'm referring to:

Web display of snapshots
Printing on newsprint (set on Medium, Fine)
8.5x11 inkjet prints

[Loa]

Ok. As I rarely print, it should be more than adequate for me as well.

Loa

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Seriously, compared to the D70, the JPEG output of the D300 is positively amazing. I used to shoot even dumb snapshots in RAW because I wasn't overly fond of the D70/D2H JPEGs, but the D300's JPEGs are more than adequate for anything I'm using them for.

RAW is still king for ultimate quality, but the JPEGs of the D300 are darn good.

Couldn't agree more. The jpgs out of the D3 and D300 are amazing. Most of the time my clients are happy with the jpgs. Many times I can give them the images straight out of the camera, reducing mucho post processing time.

There are images that I will capture in RAW, and frankly, with the newer 16 Gb cards that I've been getting....getting RAW and fine jpgs really helps. I have RAW files when I need them and I have wonderful jpgs that I can easily work with passing to a client or printing proof sheets, etc..

RAW files seem easier to work with as far as I'm concerned with Capture NX. As a recent mac convert, I'm still getting to know my way around things on the mac and I'm still fumbling around with Aperture. I've purchased a new copy of PS3 so that's now in but I feel like Adobe's conversion isn't reading my files or seeing the images as my Nikon cameras do. (simply put)...

Aperture... I don't know what the heck it's doing yet... I've only been playing with that for about 3 weeks but I do like it so far from what I've seen, but I can really see differences in jpg and raw images. For example, on a recent concert shoot, the RAW images loaded with correct skin tones but the jpgs looked like they had a little bit of a yellowish cast, but this was only happening with the D3 images and not the D300 images.

Julio

[Loa]

Thanks for your input Julio.

Right now I'm using Bridge to organize my RAW files, PS3 to edit and iPhoto to store, browse and show my finished versions (all jpegs). I really love this set-up.

The only thing that bugs me is that using ACR I'll completely lose the picture controls on my (hopefully soon) D300. Is that why you prefer using NX?

I've tried Aperture but found it an uneasy mix of an organizer (looks a *lot* like bridge) with a basic image editor. I still don't understand why Aperture/Lightroom + PS is any better than Bridge + PS.

Loa

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Loa

-snip-

I've tried Aperture but found it an uneasy mix of an organizer (looks a *lot* like bridge) with a basic image editor. I still don't understand why Aperture/Lightroom + PS is any better than Bridge + PS.

Loa

I'm with you. I'm not certain as to why I'm toying with it but here's my gut reaction...

For $200... it's a cheap photo organizer that allows me to even reference the location of files even if they aren't actively on the drive I'm using. I purchased the wireless hub with a 1 TB hard disk for the Apple... great backup device when using time machine...or without....

So for now, this means I import them into Bridge (and xfer using Adobe Transfer), set the location, reference import files into Aperture, and then work the images. I'm still fuzzy on the manual on Aperture on a few points. For example, each time you work on an image it's saved, but my understanding is that it's only referencing changes and if you export the changed copy it exports a smaller copy of the file rather than a full size one? Not sure I understand the methodology there quite yet, but like I said, I've only been playing with Aperture for a few weeks so you see why I'm still working Nikon Transfer / View NX and Capture NX for a bit until I get the feel of how my workflow will best suit me going forward with the new system. PS3 is the same so no prob there as with NX....

The photo editor on Aperture is actually not bad as long as I don't have much to do to images after a shoot. I'll still work with PS3 when I want to or need to go a little deeper into editing than just a quick couple of clone stamps or a quick level editing or exposure edit.

Julio

[RaymondL]

This is interesting to me as I just got my D300 and it has CaptureNX in the box but I have yet to install it. I'm finally feeling pretty comfortable with CS3 and ACR and the idea of moving to new software is not attractive! I shoot raw for almost everything -- at least did with my D40 and expect to do so with my D300 -- so I'm wondering if CaptureNX is really going to offer me anything new or better.

There is also the whole thing that ACR is "industry standard" -- which means it is easy to get tutorials or tips for it -- while CaptureNX is pretty rarely mentioned on the web. I subscribed to the kelby training online tutorials and there is plenty aobut CS3 and ACR but I think just one session about CaptureNX.

[Loa]

Hello Raymond,

I agree with you about standards and the quality of CS# and the fact that I don't want to learn a new app. Unfortunately, NX is the only app that will recognize your picture control settings...

Loa

[g-man]

If you shoot Nikon and shoot RAW, you will get the best possible output from your RAW files using Capture NX.

If you don't like the speed/batch capabilities of NX and need to work through tons of RAW photos then use something else so you can gain workflow speed at the cost of quality.