Nikon NX or Elements? I am a Photoshop Elements (14) user; I like the program. I shoot in RAW and use Adobe Camera RAW that comes with PSE. I downloaded the new Nikon software suite...

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I am a Photoshop Elements (14) user; I like the program. I shoot in RAW and use Adobe Camera RAW that comes with PSE.

I downloaded the new Nikon software suite and gave a quick look-see. I am not sure that I like it any better than Elements. The simplicty of ACR is sheer genius. I guess my question is "Why should I do my RAW conversion in NX?" The one answer I DON'T want to hear is, "Nikon knows Nikon pictures better than anyone else." While that may be true, I think that it's not a strong argument for changing.

So, you bunch of Ugly Hedgehogs, "Why should I change?" I am looking for a good reason (or reasons) to do so.

Thank you!

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

photoman022 wrote:

I am a Photoshop Elements (14) user; I like the pr... (show quote)

Price? And why not have both. It has been my experience that every program seems to do at least one thing better than any other program. Even if it is that one thing, it might be worth having. Anyway the NX won't cost you anything on an ongoing basis. You own the program, not lease it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you're a RAW shooter, really neither is the best option. You should be using a tool that is both efficient and maintains a 16-bit editor (or native RAW) for all potential actions. The Nikon software is not that efficient. It's good for free software, but not as good as software you need to pay for. The knock on PSE (all versions) is the limits imposed when working with their layer-based tools where you're forced to 8-bit. You can go with a workflow that starts in Nikon, outputs to a 16-bit TIFF and continues in PSE, with the limit that something complex in a layer forces that TIFF to 8-bit. The workflow is fine for low volume edits, but not efficient for large volume, both for the files being edited and the massive size of files / storage needed for a workflow that involves a TIFF for every file.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I just watched the video on Nikonians done by one of their ambassadors. He was a member of the original nix software developers. He explained why you should develop your raw photos in Nikon software and it had to do with color space. Nikon raw files are larger than adobe but smaller than profoto. I can't post a link due to you having to be a silver member or above to get access. I have watched it twice and still need to watch it again. It brought to light a lot I had not considered. He really isn't impressed by the software that much except for raw development. To get all you caught. Also has to do with reverse engineering of software to edit nef files. Not saying it is the greatest just saying it is worth watching the settings portion and the explanation of why to develop with it. Give me a couple weeks to have time and I'll explain it better. Lol

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

RAW files do not have a colorspace. Digital editors have a colorspace. Where supported, such as Adobe products, use the ProPhotoRGB colorspace as your editing colorspace for your RAW files. If you want colors that look like Nikon (or Canon, Sony, etc), set the camera calibration in Adobe to 'Camera Standard'. Your RAW images will immediately improve after the initial import to LR or ARC. Continue editing from there.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Bridges wrote:

Price? And why not have both. It has been my experience that every program seems to do at least one thing better than any other program. Even if it is that one thing, it might be worth having. Anyway the NX won't cost you anything on an ongoing basis. You own the program, not lease it.

You don’t lease Elements. You own it. It’s not LR or PS that require a lease.

RoswellAlien

Have Elements 20 and NX. Use both depending on what I up to (or what mood I’m in that day). The original file is always the same anyway.

BebuLamar

Nikon NX Studio is a good RAW converter but not very good beyond that. I guess Element use the same Adobe ACR as Photoshop and it would have better editing capabilities.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

photoman022 wrote:

I am a Photoshop Elements (14) user; I like the pr... (show quote)

Don't change!

photoman43

BebuLamar wrote:

Nikon NX Studio is a good RAW converter but not very good beyond that. I guess Element use the same Adobe ACR as Photoshop and it would have better editing capabilities.

I use NX Studio and with DXO PL4 . NX Studio has control points in it. Control Points are a very easy way to do any needed local adjustments. If your images just need a little work, Studio might be all that is needed to be used.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Thank you all for your responses. You've give me a lot to think about it.

Photoshark Loc: Oregon

For one huge thing the Nikon Software is FREE. I use it to do the heavy lifting before finishing in Photoshop

CO

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I just watched the video on Nikonians done by one ... (show quote)

Nikon software utilizes 100% of the information in the Nikon RAW (.NEF) file. Third party software makers have to reverse engineer things and consequently don't utilize all of the information in the RAW file. I've heard from a pro photographer that only about 70% to 80% of the information in the RAW files is being utilized by third party software such as Adobe products. He got those figures from engineers he knows at Nikon and Adobe. Both the engineers at Nikon and Adobe concur on that. I've been using Studio NX for a few weeks. Definitely use it for as much RAW file processing of as you can.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A recent study found that 68% of the statistics on 34% of the discussion boards are 88% made up.

So, given this brand new NX software, are people saying this is why Nikon images suck, they were using the wrong RAW processing software? (asking for a friend)

That is, Nikon RAW shooters were only 80% (at best) as good as they could have been? That smells like 100% BS.

Properframe Loc: US Virginia

CHG_CANON wrote:

A recent study found that 68% of the statistics on 34% of the discussion boards are 88% made up.

So, given this brand new NX software, are people saying this is why Nikon images suck, they were using the wrong RAW processing software? (asking for a friend)

That is, Nikon RAW shooters were only 80% (at best) as good as they could have been? That smells like 100% BS.

We all know, and it is well established, the experts agree that sources say the friends images suck because they suck. Part of the 12% within the 66% verified by the 32%.