chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

Well, I'm with you *mostly* but I will try a small sample to see if I can discern a difference (SO much of this is in the realm of monitors, eh?)...if not, no big deal, if so I'll see about other batches...<shrug> I kinda doubt the guy was lying, Paul.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

He's a Nikon Ambassador, a credential I see in every reference online. So, when demonstrating Nikon software, what else would be expected? I'm not saying he was lying, although I have implied he had a finger on the scale somewheres. My own experience is the effort of time and disk is not justified by any differential in the final results. I have ten fingers ready to poke holes in any argument that claims otherwise.

srt101fan

I read severall UHH discussions that pointed out problems with the Affinity RAW development module. I filed those away in my brain, concluding that they were probably not that critical in the context of my use of the program. More importantly, I found myself frustrated with the transfer of a photo from the Development to the Photo module. There is duplication of adjustments in these two modules and I was looking for a clear adjudication of what should be done in Development before transferring to the Photo module. I raised the question in the Affinity forum but did not get a satisfactory answer. I guess I was looking for a "cookbook" workflow that included transfer from development to final processing and I never found one that made sense to me. Ergo, my search for another RAW processor.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Well, it was only $50 as near as I can tell. My LR catalog is what let me determine the TIFF files that existed in the catalog that have no direct use in my catalog. They weren't the RAW that is in the catalog too, and based on not being in a collection that represents being used, I could filter and isolate them for deletions. There's probably some rework of the RAW I generated by the clean-up. But, I'll deal with those issues if / when ever encountered. (I saved the full LRCAT before the delete if needed.) I 'live' by my catalog as well as doing all my editing in LR.

If Affinity hasn't been the correct choice, I'd look from another commercial title rather than settling from NX Studio, no matter the endorsements from Ambassadors.

There's plenty of 100% free video-based training. I'd endeavor myself of these training videos to watch how people use the software. Possibly, doing things twice is not an actual requirement. The software couldn't be "popular" in 2022 if this Achilles Heel was widely known and real.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

NX Studio is very different from the Nikon software you used 15 years ago.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

NX Studio is excellent software but has much less functionality than the best raw processors available like Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, Capture One, and PhotoLab. It is certainly better than Affinity Photo's mediocre Develop persona, and it is FREE.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I used NX Studio for 3 months while waiting for my Nikon Z fc to be supported by the latest version of DxO PhotoLab Elite. What about NX Studio made you believe it "sucks"? That was not my impression.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I just opened and grabbed a few NEFs to remind myself. I'd shoot JPEG rather than use NX Studio for "RAW editing", certainly if that was my only tool.

srt101fan

Don't get me wrong, I plan to use Affinity, just not for RAW development. I think it's a great program. I have a ton of film B&W negatives I'm trying to scan and edit as TIFFs in Affinity. My hangup there is optimizing the quality of the scans. I'm one of these guys that puts image content first and foremost and don't need perfection in other aspects of a photo's IQ but I'd still like to do the best I can.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I understand. I used NX Studio only until my camera was supported by my preferred editor DxO PhotoLab Elite. I rarely use NX Studio anymore. As I indicated earlier it lacks a lot of functionality compared to the best commercial raw software available but it is certainly preferable to Affinity's half assed offering, the Develop persona, which is missing most of the major features one expects from a state of the art raw program.

There are many feature limitations in Develop, but the most egregious omission is that once you export your raw edits to the Photo persona they are deleted and if you want to re-edit your raw file to make additional changes you need to start over from scratch. The edits are not retained in a database or sidecar file. Affinity Photo is a great program and an incredible bargain. I got mine on sale a couple of years ago for only $24!!! I quickly discovered that the Develop persona was the only weak link in otherwise terrific software. Maybe they will address Develop's weaknesses when version 2 is released. I certainly hope so.

The main value of NX Studio, besides being free, is the quality of the output, assuming you can live with the limited functionality and somewhat awkward interface.

tcthome Loc: NJ

I have just started using it & not that much. I mostly use it (or FastStone) for scanning the photos before moving them to LR.=If at all. I have used NX to make some basic adjustments & it seems ok & will probably try it a little more. I'm so use to LR6, I tend use it mostly.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If you are a Nikon user that relies on proprietary camera functions like Active D Lighting and GPS for Geotagging when shooting, and don't mind very little control over the results with de-noising and sharpening, slower program execution, and non-existent local editing capabilities (no gradient filters or adjustment brushes), and very weak image file management, I suppose it's ok. I prefer Lightroom/Capture One/On1Raw/DXO Photolab because they all offer significantly better editing options, faster operation, and while they don't support Active D Lighting and other proprietary features, they do offer a workflow-based approach that lets the user copy adjustments to multiple files, create and use presets, definable keyboard shortcuts, in some cases exporting adjusted raw files in the form of dng files - better editing experience than a tiff - and in the case of Lightroom, an excellent image database/catalog for file management - and the fact that if you have multiple cameras, these applications can work with them. Nikon software only works with Nikon's raw files.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Wish I known about it. Did they put it up on the web for later viewing?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If the images are going to be printed and you want faithful color reproduction proprietary software is the way to go. NX Studio was specifically designed to edit Nikon RAW data and I am in agreement with Vincent Versace. My professional lab also shares the same opinion, perhaps they know a couple of things we do not know about printing. If the images are going to be used on line then not even a calibrated monitor is needed.

Another software that I always use is OM Digital Solutions Workspace for my Olympus RAW data. I have been using proprietary software since I began using digital around 2002. Affinity Photo is my editor after preliminary adjustments to either files which I convert to 16 bits Tiff. I do not tend to work a lot with RAW data so my workflow is a simple one. This has worked for me and I will keep on using them.

DougS Loc: Central Arkansas

I 'made' myself start using NX Studio, because it does render colors better than Adobe. Yes, it is 'clunky' (ugh). After processing in NX, if needed I then further process in LR and/or PS. It does get 'easier' to use, once you learn the quirks.