dlutkehaus1 Loc: sun city west, az

Has anyone utilized Capture over Lightroom or Photoshop?

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I use View and Capture NX-2 (new version Capture NX-D which is not as good as NX-2). Nikon software renders images from Nikon cameras better than other software. The closest other software comes to rendering an image NEF or JPEG right out of the camera is Corel Paintshop Pro X7. I also use Lightroom 5.6, CR6 and DXO, but these software packages do not produce the same IQ right out of the camera.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Thats all I use...View and Capture...and sometimes portrait pro for work.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I hate Capture NX-D I wish they would have kept going with NX-2. NX-2 will not handle the NEF files from my D810.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have used both ViewNX and CaptureNX and like some of the editing capabilities of both.
--Bob

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

What do you think of Capture NX-D? To me it is a disappointment.

klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala

I have looked at the Beta version and even downloaded the first release of NX-D. Just like you I think it's worth about as much as you pay for it....Nothing!

I've been using Capture NX2 for several years now and will continue to use it as long as it works with my cameras and computer operating system.

If Nikon (or someone else) does not provide a suitable upgrade or replacement for NX2 in the near future I will seriously consider a different brand of camera when the time comes to upgrade.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

That was my first reaction to Capture NX-D as well.

However after using it for a while its not as bad as I initially thought if you can live with the lack of work flow aspects. Nikon wake up.

I prefer NX-2 but I'll keep NX-D in hopes that it will be improved in the future.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

One way around it is to open the D810 files in View, convert to 16 bit Tiff in the same folder and then open NX-2 and edit.

You'll need computer power since the Tiff file is over 200mb.

Save your edited file as jpg at 85% and the size is about 5mb.

Just saying... for those that like PP.

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

I've used most of the popular raw converters. I rate Lightroom and Capture One the best combination of utility, speed, image quality, file management and color rendering.

Capture NX2 has slightly better color faithfulness to the in-camera jpg - which is a questionable feature - and access to the proprietary picture controls like high ISO noise reduction and Active D Lighting - which I never use anyway. Lightroom's noise reduction is better and less destructive of detail, and has highlight and shadow recovery sliders that do not have a negative impact on highlight headroom like Active D Lighting.

You can get accurate Nikon colors with Lightroom, BTW, if that is important to you, using an import preset.

http://photographylife.com/how-to-get-accurate-nikon-colors-in-lightroom

I don't really care to match Nikon's colors, because when color accuracy is critical, I use a custom camera profile generated using an XRite Color Checker Passport, which surpasses both Nikon's software and the native color settings in LR in getting colors that resemble the subject being photographed, and corrects for any camera senor color bias.

The clunky interface, lack of image management with View NX, and the lack of an API to be able to connect plugins to Capture NX makes it a non-starter for me. It is ok for simple image editing on a It seems a lot to give up in the name of being able to easily match an 8 bit jpg.

After all is said and done, all of the above programs merely interpret and render the data in a raw file. None of these are right or wrong - just different. In the big picture, LR and Capture One fit better into a fast, volume-oriented workflow than NX2. What NX2 used to offer was better local adjustments using the control point methodology, but I find Lightroom's radial and linear gradients, and the adjustment brush easier to use and control.

There are other differences, some subtle and some not, but by and large, LR and Capture One are more complete tools.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Can the cataloging features be turn off?

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

Easier to edit individual files in Capture One, but I do that in LR by simply setting up a "temp" folder that is polled by LR. When something shows up, either by tethered capture or simply by my importing a file into this "watched" folder, it is added to the catalog and I can edit, save the edits, or delete the whole thing. This is how I manage students' work when they need my advice and guidance on an image.

Anyway, I completely understand the question, because you, like nearly everyone I know that has thought about using LR, are concerned about and have reservations about how the catalog works. You also do not have an understanding about how it works.

I will tell you a short story - I have had a file structure that is pretty well organized, just the way I like it, since 2000. I began using LR in 2011. My file structure is still completely intact. If you look in Windows Explorer, the main folder where my pictures are, you cannot detect at what point I began using LR. Nothing has changed. I import the files to my computer using LR, but instead of first creating the folder and copying the files as I used to do, I open the import dialog, select copy files, and specify where they go - and LR creates the folder on the fly. I could also just do as I have always done, and navigate to the folder in the folder view in LR's Library module and sync the folder, and use the Add option to just add the files to the catalog without moving or creating copies of them.

The advantage of a catalog/database is that it is simple and organized. Rating, Tagging, Keywording, creating multiple virtual collections, etc is so fast and easy. As an example, I have some pictures in several collections, lets call them waterfalls, cats and dogs, landscapes, small birds, large birds. I needed to assemble a group of 21 images in a new collection for an art exhibit, using some of the images in the other collections. I created a new collection called Aug 26 exhibit and made it the target collection. As I reviewed the images in each of the contributing collections I click on the B key to add the image to the collection. If I change my mind afterwards or if when viewing the target collection I find I need to remove images from the collection, I press B again to remove it from the current collection. I have over 100,000 images, but this process took me less than 15 mins, and I did not have to mess around with creating folders, moving or copying files, etc, as I would have in the past.

I am able to teach this to complete newbies that are not particularly computer savvy in a matter of a couple of hours, and it makes perfect sense to them, and they begin using it immediately.

I do not see any value in disabling the catalog - what is it that you feel you would gain by turning it off?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Memory and storage space.

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

My current catalog is 700 mb, and the previews are 28.6 gb for 50,000 image files. Both are smaller for an older catalog, but those are mostly old jpg files and small tifs from my previous work (scans and other files from before 2000. it's really not an issue.

Not sure what your concern is about memory - it only uses ram during program execution and it uses it fairly sparingly, at least on a PC. Not sure about its memory management on a Mac.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

That's not very much. My images occupy about 40GB with 1TB available for back up.

I have 2 256GB SSDs so space will be a concern at some point.

Some of my tiffs go over 200mb and I have no patience for slow editing. I'm in and out of different editors all the time. So far its not an issue with 32GB ram. I don't permanently save tiffs or raw flies and rarely go back to edit finished images.

I'm just a creature of habit. I have been manually cataloging for so long its second nature to me and have no trouble finding things.