I tried the Nikon software (the latest is NX Studio) several times and never liked it, mostly since there are no layers and masking is almost non-existent. So I didn't see any use for it. I've been converting raw files (and processing) in Affinity Photo (AP) and prior to using AP I did the same in Photoshop. My latest processing was to first convert raw files in either DxO Pure Raw or Topaz DeNoise AI and then process in AP.

One of our UHH members sent me a PM indicating that some of my images lacked detail - he was correct. I spent hours trying to figure out what I did wrong and in the process found other images that lacked detail. The only process that removed detail was de-noising. I tried different settings in Topaz and in DxO with no improvement. Then I had an epiphany - I downloaded the latest version of Nikon's NX Studio (free) and converted one of the raw files into the Nikon TIF format (no adjustments made, just conversion) and took the TIF into Affinity Photo. WOW - no loss of detail and minimal noise which is easily adjusted in AP. Then I did the same processing as I had done in AF and the results are so much better. I then used this same procedure to many other photos and got similarly improved results.

NX Studio can batch convert, and send any converted TIF file directly to your post-processing program of choice - it's easy to figure out how - so no need to save the TIF file.

Give it a try and you'll change how you process as I have. I will no longer use either DxO Pure Raw or Topaz DeNoise.

Elliott,
I think too many people are hung up on 'noise'. It's unfortunate that the electrical engineering term migrated to digital photography. For those of us who worked with film to start, and may still do so, grain is part of the image. Generally, the visibility of grain increases along with higher ISO settings. This is true with both film and digital. Now the difference is grain is somewhat random throughout an image where noise is rectilinear. That may result in noise being a bit more noticeable.

Software companies wish to expound on the concept that noise is the worst thing digital photographers confront but they have a solution. In reality, my concern would be how the noise removal software discerns between an actual noise pixel and a pixel that contains a minuscule amount of actual image data. Thus, eliminating or reducing noise may inadvertently remove small details that are critical to the sharpness of an image.

There are exposure techniques that can mitigate noise considerably while maintaining a maximum of detail within an image.
--Bob

If your main objective is to use Nikon's own software to render the raw files, you don't have to go anywhere near any jpeg settings or processes (other than to zero them in Picture Control). As I said before, third party raw converter providers have to reverse engineer what Nikon have done but Nikon don't have to do that. There are people more informed than me that are saying the proprietary software is the best for rendering raw files. What I've been saying all along is that you can eliminate any unwanted jpeg-oriented adjustments in Picture Control.

When you run out of diskspace working in a longer (time / steps) workflow with monstrous and unnecessary TIFFs, you might not find this idea so 'free'.

More effective would be learning and applying the basics of Noise Processing and Sharpening. Neither of these settings are applied to the RAW files. Instead, the RAW photographer is responsible for understanding and applying that knowledge onto / into their images during the edit process. NX studio is doing nothing more than the human digital editor should be doing themselves in a workflow that skips an extraneous step in unneeded software and the associated TIFF transfer file.

These two posts are specific to LR. The ideas are applicable to all professional-grade software.

Basics of noise processing

Basics of Lightroom Sharpening

That's a concern for me -- rendering fine detail. I do see a difference between what the camera and NX Studio produce versus alternative processors which can do a better job. Here's an example. I opened the NEF file in NX Studio, zeroed all the Picture Control settings and generated a 16 bit TIFF. DXO PL-5 has a deservedly excellent reputation for it's Bayer demosaicing. It does a better job. Likewise SilkyPix provides an option to adjust the demosaicing sharpness. I pushed it all the way up and arguably they've provided adjustment there that's creating demosaicing artifacts but it's nice to have choice -- definitely squeezing more detail from that NEF file. The camera/NX Studio don't get maximum possible detail from the raw file. Skipping the JPEG output and creating a TIFF won't help.

Elliott,
I think too many people are hung up on 'noise'. It's unfortunate that the electrical engineering term migrated to digital photography. For those of us who worked with film to start, and may still do so, grain is part of the image. Generally, the visibility of grain increases along with higher ISO settings. This is true with both film and digital. Now the difference is grain is somewhat random throughout an image where noise is rectilinear. That may result in noise being a bit more noticeable.

Software companies wish to expound on the concept that noise is the worst thing digital photographers confront but they have a solution. In reality, my concern would be how the noise removal software discerns between an actual noise pixel and a pixel that contains a minuscule amount of actual image data. Thus, eliminating or reducing noise may inadvertently remove small details that are critical to the sharpness of an image.

There are exposure techniques that can mitigate noise considerably while maintaining a maximum of detail within an image.
--Bob