N4646W

I've been playing around with different PP software. I always start with Capture NX-2 and maybe the NIK collection. I'm not artistic, and just like to do minimal processing to keep what I saw, not something that is over the top as I am "not" artistic.

Two things I have noticed:
1. Starting in NX-2 I get a much more dimensional rendition of my images. Once I take them into ON1, LR, DXO, and Affinity, the colors lose their dimension. The images appear flat or flatter than what I brought in from NX-2. The images processed in NX-2 are saved as uncompressed NEF.

2. I do my spot, dust, ect. removal in NX-2. When I bring the file into another program, almost all the spots are back. ON1 seems to be the worst. So I remove all the spots in ON1, save as a tiff to retain as much data as possible and take the file into another program and the spots are back. Not as bad, but noticeable.

The spots are not on the sensor, they are fog on the front element, I shoot a lot of coastal shots and I expect it. The reason I use so many different programs is that I have all older AI lenses and shoot manual mode only and am trying to get the most out of my shots and learn to process. I was in hopes that the new ON Raw would help, but it makes my raw files worse. Affinity and Rawtherapee seem to interpret the best, but then I end up with an interpretation of an NEF file, and so far only PSP will open an Affinity file.

So, other than not shooting in the fog and along the coast does anyone have any ideas as to what I am doing wrong? The cameras are FF, D610, D800e, D810.

Ron

R.G. Loc: Scotland

My first advice would be to carry a micro-fibre lens cloth at all times and make frequent use of it. The right hand pocket in my shooting jacket is dedicated for that purpose.

Where the PP is concerned you seem to have two problems - the loss of vividness compared to what NX-2 is giving you and the loss of adjustments when you export from NX-2.

Regarding problem #1, I think the trouble is that NX-2 does give vivid renderings of raw files. It's possible to be desensitised by that extra vividness to the point where you miss it when it's not there. I can't speak for the others you mention except LR which I know goes for a neutral, natural rendering (which I'm glad of). If the NX-2 level of vividness is what you want it's very simple to get the other editors to reproduce it. Extra contrast/clarity and saturation/vibrance are usually enough, although I suspect that NX-2 may favour the warmer, more vibrant colours such as yellow, orange and red, in which case you could reproduce that rendering by shifting WB towards yellow a smidge.

Where the spots are concerned, I think one of the problems with non-destructive editors is that when they pass on the adjustments record at the time of export, any subsequent editors that open the exported file need to be able to accurately interpret and reproduce those adjustments. If the subsequent editors aren't 100% compatible they might mis-interpret or even completely fail to interpret the adjustments applied by the previous editor.

You say that you export uncompressed NEF files from NX-2 - it's possible that some editors don't look for previous adjustments when importing proprietary raw format files. Alternatively, I suspect that raw files don't carry a record of previous adjustments, so what you get when you export as NEF is just a reproduction of the original NEF file. I don't have NX-2 so I can't confirm or disprove that suggestion. But if NX-2 was exporting just the original raw file (without any adjustments record) it would explain the flatness that you get when importing to other editors - you aren't keeping the previous adjustments done in NX-2.

In the case of tiff files, it must just be a compatibility issue. It might be worth trying another universal lossless format like DNG for exported files if your editors provide that option. Where the cloning is concerned, it might be worth checking how the non-NX2 editors interpret the opacity of the patches, but first check to determine whether the patches are there or not in the first place.

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

You need to convert and save the edits you make to a RAW image as a TIFF or JPEG if you want them to be visible in software other than the one you are editing in. Unless you are deliberately, or inadvertently through a preset, doing additional editing the TIFF in application B should look like the edited RAW in application A.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

I have used NX2 a lot for a couple of years. You do have to save as a tiff if you want your edits to carry over to another software for additional processing. I frequently go from NX2 to Elements. I have not noticed a loss of quality going to Elements but I struggle if I start out with Elements. So far I have a hard time getting as pleasing an end result if I don't use NX2 in the workflow.

N4646W

Good Morning,

I always pack a cleaning kit just in case. I'm also anal enough to do a wipe down of equipment at the vehicle and complete cleaning at home.

I do believe that the other processing programs are not able to read the changes made in NX-2. The saved files are always bigger than the initial file, and I have NX set to neutral and cameras set to standard. Have tried setting cameras to neutral also. I did experiment with setting the cameras to TIFF and the results were still the same. Have all my other PP software striped out as far as their pre editing of RAW files will go. So this leads me to believe that they are not able to read all the info from an NEF once it is processed in NX, but it is still a RAW file.

As mentioned, I did try saving as a TIFF, also JPEG, DNG, but get the same results. I wonder if this is just a Nikon problem or do other cameras have the same problem?

Thanks for your reply.

Ron

N4646W

I have tried to save in other formats before taking them to other software. JPEG seem to give the best results, but it is pretty well stripped out as far as being able to edit it in other software leaving you with just global processing. Is this not correct?

As I mentioned in the previous reply I stripped out all the software (as far as I dared) to not interpret the file as they sought fit by adding a preset. Not that they did not provide some stunning interpretations.

Ron

N4646W

I agree with you. I guess I got caught up in the hype by all these other software vendors, but they do have some features that interested me.

With most of the other software it was not so much the loss of quality, but the perceived three dimensional effect you get from NX. To me, that seems to get lost in other PP software and takes an awful lot of effort to regain what you brought into them from NX, and some times you just cannot. Too bad Nikon and google threw NX and NIK on the trash heap.

Thanks for your reply.

Ron

N4646W

So I tried to improve my knowledge today and find out more info on NX2.

It does save the changes to an XMP sidecar. Sidecars are supposedly written to a standard, or that is what is implied.

Does this mean that other software is not reading, or misinterpreting the information, or is it not being sent along with the possessed file from NX2? OR, are they not interpreting the RAW file correctly? I'm also wondering if this is common with other camera manufacturers software? Not that there is much we can do about it, but might somehow affect work flow we now use and understand it better.

Ron

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

N4646W, you have such a convoluted workflow that I am not surprised you have issues. With all that you have spent already, you could have had a subscription to the Adobe LR/PS package. LR requires no more training than what you have already invested while it has many other advantages. Perhaps you might be open to LR.

N4646W

Good Morning,

In which way? I'm looking at software that is compatible with NX2. So far I haven't found one other than DXO. I do have the Adobe software, it takes too much time to achieve what is done in NX2, and I'm not satisfied with the print output as compared with other software (in my opinion). I would have been satisfied with NX2 but the Wife has an 810 which NX2 cannot process, therefore the search for other software. This was before we discovered that the 810 would out put a TIFF, which is a very large file. We are still learning the capabilities of our cameras, so it is a learning experience on both ends. Just not looking to spend a lot of time with PP unless we deliberately over or under exposed.

Ron

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Hi Ron,

I am not familiar with Nikon. Is NX2 the software that comes bundled with the camera? If so, that should be good for what it does but is rather limited. To address the printing, I find that LR gives me exactly what I want. I have to check "auto correct" or something like that to be off. Otherwise, the printer will tweak the file. I use Costco which always gets the color balance right but the brightness might be off a tad. They always reprint without a hassle.

I think LR is easy to learn so long as you start from the beginning, that is importing, and learn each step before proceeding. Julieann Kost at tv.adobe.com is probably the best teacher. Why do I like LR so much? Keywords. If you use them, then you find anything you want in a heartbeat or two. Developing. You can stick to the basic adjustments or go full blast with the linear gradient, radial filter, clone/heal tool, adjustment brush, distortion control, lens correction and so much more. All of this is done non-destructively which means your raw file remains totally unaltered while you can have different versions for outputting. Not only does it export for viewing on a screen of any size or for printing, you can also make movies, slide shows and books with it.

I have Nik which I no longer use. LR does about 95% of my processing with the rest going into PS. LR is the gold standard for what it does. You can use it as a beginner or as a professional. Good luck and let me know if you have any more questions.

N4646W

Good Evening,

I see that your a Canon user. Did you use their bundled software at some point just to see what it did? The reason I ask is to find out if you had the same problems? If so, it would go to show that XMP files are not interpreted the same by other software.

Yes, LR is pretty easy to get around in, "But" I still have to re edit anything brought in from NX2. I can open a RAW image in NX on one monitor and usually spend less than 5 min on it. Open the same RAW file in LR (or any other software) on the other monitor and it looks no where like the image I started with in NX, and takes quite a bit longer to tweak the setting to get what I like in NX2. I like NIK as it plays well with NX. They wrote NX so it should.

The catalog is pretty useful from my limited experience with it, but I don't have a use for it. I have my own system that I can use Windows to find what I am looking for.

Ron

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Hi Ron. See my comments below.