Nikon Capture NXD vs Lightroom for Nikon cameras: At a Nikon presentation they recommended Nikon Capture NXD over Lightroom because the Nikon program is all set up for the Nikon...

Dave Tribiano

At a Nikon presentation they recommended Nikon Capture NXD over Lightroom because the Nikon program is all set up for the Nikon cameras and you lose a lot by going to a third party program. Would like to get the opinions of Hedgehog members. Thank you

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Dave Tribiano wrote:

At a Nikon presentation they recommended Nikon Capture NXD over Lightroom because the Nikon program is all set up for the Nikon cameras and you lose a lot by going to a third party program. Would like to get the opinions of Hedgehog members. Thank you

I have used Nikon View NX2, View NX-I and Capture NX-D, but I remain a Lightroom/Photoshop user since no one can ever point to what is LOST... :) I also convert from NEF to DNG, again, no one can point to what is lost in the conversion. :)

Of course the Nikon people will recommend their product, and if you want to create images out of raw that look just like shooting jpg from the camera you can either shoot jPG or shoot raw and let the Nikon software create the JPG .

The Nikon software will let you pick/set the picture controls, to match what is available in camera JPG conversion, but they are also easily duplicated in other software, so in my opinion, not a selling point :)

Did they explain what is actually lost BTW?

Edit: May be off topic, BUT Lightroom also is a very very powerful database for your images, and does completely non-destructive editing, meaning you can revert back to the original at anytime, before exporting a completed JPG.

I wonder if the Nikon guys mentioned that? ;)

Larwbuck Loc: Seattle, Washington

Ive used Nikon View NX and Capture NX, thought it was ok, it takes your NEF files and will convert to JPG just like any other post processing software. Of course they will say that something will get lost if you use another product, it is their product, I am interested to know what would be lost however because I have never heard that.

I still use LR, it gives you more functionality in your pp'ing and you can incorporate PS, ON1, TOPAZ and other products in an easy workflow.

If you so desire you could utilize The NIKON software to download from the card or camera because once downloaded you shouldn't loose anything after that point, it just would add another step in the process. One other thing to consider is many photographers utilize the LR functionality over NIKON with no mention of any loss whatsoever, good luck in your final choice and if you find out what they believe is lost, let us all know.

Dave Tribiano

Thank you for responding. I am a rookie at this. I believe he said data was lost and he showed a few slides demonstrating this. Just bought Lightroom and now have to learn it which is a little intimidating to me. I have bought a few tutorials and hope to be on my way soon. I do enjoy your input as you are a regular.

Dave Tribiano

Thank you for your response. I will be using Lightroom but I wanted to see if anyone else agreed with him. It is a free product so he wasn't selling. This was a free event at B&H on working with your Nikon cameras.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Dave Tribiano wrote:

Thank you for responding. I am a rookie at this. I believe he said data was lost and he showed a few slides demonstrating this. Just bought Lightroom and now have to learn it which is a little intimidating to me. I have bought a few tutorials and hope to be on my way soon. I do enjoy your input as you are a regular.

Dave, I am also a rookie with Lightroom but I have been viewing Anthony Morganti's YouTube series on how to use Lightroom. I think there are about 40 sessions on Lightroom and they are all FREE. Go to AnthonyMorganti.com. There are a number of FREE tutorials out there by a number of photographers. I like Anthony Morganti because he does not race thru his presentations. He goes slow so that a dummie like me can grasp what he is saying and doing. Some folks that present this stuff wind up on page 5 and I am still on page 1.
-FiddleMaker

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

Nikon Capture NXD is a JOKE compared to Lightroom. It's slow, clunky, and just a pain to use. I've also found that LR does just as good a job - and in some cases a better job - at processing the RAW files than the Nikon software does.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Dave Tribiano wrote:

At a Nikon presentation they recommended Nikon Capture NXD over Lightroom because the Nikon program is all set up for the Nikon cameras and you lose a lot by going to a third party program. Would like to get the opinions of Hedgehog members. Thank you

Of course, they would I tried Nikon's Capture and found it to be slow and clumsy. Still prefer LR

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

As a raw converter Nikon is best for for Nikon raw Nef and Canon is best for CR2. They know what makes up their raws and I easily see this shooting infrared.

Dngallagher wrote:

I have used Nikon View NX2, View NX-I and Capture ... (show quote)

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

sueyeisert wrote:

As a raw converter Nikon is best for for Nikon raw Nef and Canon is best for CR2. They know what makes up their raws and I easily see this shooting infrared.

Be really really nice to know what the difference is though, and what is "lost" by using other raw converters.

I can say from my own experience, right out of the gate with no adjustments what so ever, Adobe Camera Raw seemed to do a better job vs. Apple Digital Raw when I was using Aperture.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Dngallagher wrote:

I have used Nikon View NX2, View NX-I and Capture ... (show quote)

First of all Nikon Employees are NOT allowed to make Non-Nikon recommendations. Having worked at Nikon for a number of years, I have all of the Nikon software that is available and it is very good. But, I also have Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop which are my go to programs.
Yes, I do still use Nikon Capture and Capture DX in some instances. They can do some things more easily than Lightroom/Photoshop but remember that anything done in Capture NX or DX is destructive (meaning that it saves it directly to the file) and anything done in Lightroom is non-destructive (meaning that you can always undo it). So, I work my images as far as I can in Lightroom and then export a copy to work in the Nikon programs. I never ever work my originals in the Nikon programs (that way I can always have the original to fall back on). I guess I am a software junkie because I have lots of programs that I can fall back on as necessary. The one program that I really like is Nikons Camera Control Pro for tethering your camera to the laptop.

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

I question the pricing of Adobe creative cloud for an amateur photographer. If you upgrade your post processing software every three years, you are paying $360 to Adobe.

Photoshop Elements or Corel Paintshop Pro can be had for under $50 and provide a less odious learning curve than Photoshop requires. Both PSE and Paintshop have many of the features of the Creative Cloud software including photo database management. Are PSE and Paintshop as good as Creative Cloud, No. Will they meet 95% of my PP needs, Yes.

If I were a professional, the cost of Creative Cloud would be small but as an amateur it is not justified.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Edia wrote:

I question the pricing of Adobe creative cloud for... (show quote)

You are forgetting that if YOU need to UPGRADE to new versions, then you need to add in your costs every year or two, so you are looking at an unfair comparison I believe.

If you NEVER need to ever UPGRADE then perhaps you are correct, as long as you do not end up with old software that will not support the raws for your new camera - of course you could just shoot JPG I suppose :)

I am far from a professional myself, BUT $9.99 a month is chump change for the ever current version of Lightroom, Bridge AND Photoshop in my opinion.

As for the learning curve, yes, it is steep in Photoshop for sure, but then so is learning to fly a jetplane vs. learning to drive a car ;)

PSE is a cheaper and less capable alternative to Photoshop, the BIG difference in my opinion is that PSE is an 8 bit editor where Photoshop is a 16 bit editor.

Will they meet your needs - maybe.

BTW - When a new version comes out for CC, you upgrade when you want, no additional cost - you do not need to wait for every three years ;)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Dave Tribiano wrote:

At a Nikon presentation they recommended Nikon Capture NXD over Lightroom because the Nikon program is all set up for the Nikon cameras and you lose a lot by going to a third party program. Would like to get the opinions of Hedgehog members. Thank you

Dave, up to a point, I'd agree with them. However, they are there to sell Nikon Products, not Adobe products. It's as simple as that.

Nikon products will work with Nikon "in camera" settings, which other products will completely ignore. However, that doesn't mean the other products won't do a great job of editing images.

Unlike some on this site, I'll keep my .nef files instead of converting. It's just a personal choice.
--Bob

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

Dngallagher wrote:

You are forgetting that if YOU need to UPGRADE to ... (show quote)

I have a four year old camera and my only upgrades have been for better glass. My raw files (I always shoot Raw) are recognized by all available software. Adobe intentionally disabled 16 bit color depth layers on PSE as a marketing ploy. Adobe also added a couple of features to PSE and renamed it PSE 14. Paintshop Pro does work with 16 bit color depth.