srt101fan

Last year there was a topic on subject software. Some of you had it but hadn't gotten around to using it. Others were planning to get it. Any updated opinions/experience you can share regarding its use, especially as the front-end RAW converter to create TIFFs for transfer to another editor (in my case Affinity Photo)?

BebuLamar

I have it but use it only a couple of times.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I used it Nikon software a long time ago.
I settled on other software. Nikon is a great hardware company but I didn't think their software measured up.
That was about 15 years ago. I have something that works for me so I haven't revisited their software.

srt101fan

I've been taking pictures for a long time - film, then digital. In the last couple of years I started to shoot RAW and have tried to get more serious about editing. But my efforts have been sporadic at best. I bought Affinity and generally like it, but have decided not to use it to develop the RAW files. I started to learn Nikon Capture NX-D and then NX Studio came along. I think I'll stick with it but am still interested in others' experience.

Bill_de Loc: US

I play with Studio once in a while. But PS Elements does everything I want to do these days. I'm so used to Elements I edit mostly with my eye closed. I know ... It shows.

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It depends on what you have in terms of commercial software. If you use the camera manufacturer's software as a starting point and transition RAW to 16-bit TIFF, then into that commercial software, consider the long(er) term implications of this work-flow:

1. You work in two software, at 2x the total time-effort. Does it matter much for 1 image? Probably not. But, what if you have 100 images? What if you have 100 images every time you execute this workflow?

2. If you have a TIFF stuck in the middle of your workflow, what does that do to your storage? For my 22MP camera, the RAWs are around 28MB and the corresponding TIFFs are around 123MB. Again, this isn't much of an issue for 1 image, but it does present problems longer-term, especially if you have tools that need to duplicate the TIFF like Topaz modules.

For about 4 years I worked with a similar workflow, starting with Canon DPPv4 for RAW to TIFF to LR5. So, I speak from experience of this idea. I maintain a rather unsophisticated back-up approach, simply keeping my primary images on a 4TB Western Digital HD and copies of all those images and the corresponding LRCAT files on a second 4TB WB Passport. One Passport is red, the other is blue, and the drive 'volumes' are named differently identifying their purpose when attached to Windows.

I updated to LR6 just about the time they stopped selling this upgrade option from LR5. I ran an experiment of my DPP4+LR6 results with work edited entirely within LR6. I could accomplish the same (or immaterially different) results entirely within LR6 as compared to the longer and more disk-intense DPP workflow. I gave up on the DPPv4-based workflow.

In March 2022 I started to reach the physical limits at 3.8ish GB. It reached the point, due to lack of free diskspace, that I couldn't easily drag updated folders from the primary to the secondary to update the back-up drive. I just skip the duplicates when Windows finishes inspecting the candidate files being copied. But, without the workarea free diskspace, Windows can't do this, making my task much more time consuming and risky to not be complete in my backup approach.

I spent a few hours figuring out how to identify and filter my LR catalog to find a few years of these intermediary TIFFs. I ended up purging about 4.4k TIFFs from the LR catalog and underlying disk, recovering about 800GB from the primary Passport. I still haven't repeated the clean-up to my secondary back-up, but the day will come when that disk reaches its compacity and the same clean-up purge will be executed.

Summary: if you pay for pro-grade software that does everything and more than the free software from the camera, use what you pay for and save yourself both your valuable time and your valuable disk. Neither of those resources are so 'cheap' you can just throw them away on non value-added work effort.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

I'm a LR/PS guy from the get go, but I was on an NPS Zoom meeting last week (Z9 based) and Vincent Versace made a great case for using NX Studio. He based his stance on the fact that the camera *manufacturer* has an edge on after-market vendors, and he swears by colors being more true. Judging from his work it's pretty hard to argue his methods. I downloaded the software right after the conference. Haha...I have yet to actually use it! For my work with bunches of images it doesn't resonate with me to add the step to my workflow ($5 to Paul) *but* for smaller, more artistic, efforts maybe so. I plan on checking it out, just have to remember to do it first!!! ;0)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you don't use the Adobe software properly, whether purposefully or due to ignorance of the possibilities, it is very easy to make the Nikon (or Canon) software seem like it has some 'special sauce' Adobe can't replicate.

Adobe, being Adobe, defaults their RAW picture profiles applied to RAW in both ACR or LR as something called 'Adobe Standard'. When 'Adobe standard' is compared to the corresponding 'camera standard' also available in the Adobe software or directly from the camera software, this is a very sad and very inferior comparison. Something very easy to point to as 'evidence' of Adobe not being as good. Create your Adobe presets and / or workflow to use 'camera standard' and you have those 'rich' colors of the camera available immediately for editing entirely inside LR.

With a very detailed knowledge of the differences and how to identify the differences, you can show the lens profiles are 1 to 1 better as well as the noise processing, if you only used just one of the softwares rather than combining these tools. But, these subtle differences are overall immaterial, especially in large-volume processing that tools like LR accomplish or the immensely powerful capabilities of PS.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...yah, man. I've only been using the Adobe software since 2004, so my ignorance just might be tangible. But I'll tell you what, you shoulda been in on that meeting. IJS...

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I looked at it out of interest and found it slow as per their previous, other than ViewNx. ACR/PS remains my choice.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Given Vincent Versace's listed credentials, he should be well aware of how to use the Adobe products to their maximum capabilities. Scanning his IG thread, I don't see anything that seems different nor unique in their colors / processing. I'd be rather surprised anything is NX studio 'exclusive' in the creation and posting, so I remain rather suspicious of the idea being proposed.

srt101fan

Excellent points, Paul. And you certainly make a compelling case for avoiding the TIFF step and using one program to do it all. But I don't aspire to be a "power user" of photo-editing software and my editing needs are much more modest than yours and perhaps those of most folks here that post-process their photos. Lightroom/Photoshop for me is and has been off the table. As I said in an earlier post, I have Affinity Photo, but have decided not to use their RAW development module. So I'm looking at NX Studio as my RAW developer and, I suspect, my go-to general editor for most of my photos. I'll use Affinity for those selected pictures that need a little more than NX Studio can give (e.g. removing objects, dodging/burning in, etc).

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What is the basis of your reservation(s) against Affinity? I don't understand. You paid for it. It's a leading contender in the market. It should have more advanced features with a more initiative interface, aka do more with less effort. How could that not be the logical and compelling choice of digital editing tool?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

It sucks.

srt101fan

Sorry, but that's not very helpful....