I had a discussion with a print master today regarding the quality of the NEF files (Nikon RAW) using different programs to convert. From my experience, when converting NEF files using Capture NX the quality of the images is far better compared to using Adobe Camera Raw. I told him this but he insisted that there should be no difference.
I am still sure that there is better quality though can not understand why and by how much. Any idea?
When I did a RAW conversion test some years back between ACR, Capture NX, and Capture One, the winner turned out to be Capture NX, then Capture One, with ACR coming in third. The differences were NOT very dramatic though. If I remember correctly I had to enlarge to approximately 200% to really see a discernible difference.
I think it depends on the criteria you are using to measure image quality. What evaluation criteria are you using? Sharpness, color accuracy, shadow detail, or a few other factors? Each software package will produce differences, and it is quite possible that each result can be quite satisfactory.
To me, the ability of the "darkroom" technician to fulfill the photographer's vision is just as important (if not more) than the actual software being used. All tools have limitations and the art is in learning to work with--and beyond them.
Nikon's own algorithms for NEF conversions are well known (and proprietary) to them, while Adobe's ACR conversions are a 'best guess', so you will see some difference.
Whoopie doo on all parts. Why do people get into these arguments? Once you have converted and made your corrections, who can tell the difference how you got there? Geez.. I bet many (this is true) people skip the RAW side of things and use jpegs. Why not? If you captured the image correctly (to a degree), either image type will give you a great image! HERASY I know. But that is just the facts folks. You can capture an image in RAW and then spend HOURS correcting it and adjusting many small changes all over the image. But how many people are going to understand what you did and how many can tell the difference from your many hours of changes vs just a few simple PS tricks ( I hate to call them tricks?).
All these different methods depend on what SOME programmer decides will work in MOST cases. How many of your shots fall into this category? ALL electronic images need SOME modification to get what you SAW in your minds eye. This holds true for both film and digital.
There is no question that some people can shoot RAW and spend hours "correcting" the image. For these folks, I suppose the question of which SOFTWARE gives them a better RAW image makes sense. On the other hand, check out what the suppliers of the cameras have programmed for the jpegs...they are trying to get you the best conversion possible for YOU to allow for your changes for what YOU saw.
Ok, I have lost some friends and gained some new ones!
I respect your opinion. You remind me of myself when I just started photography, some 10 years ago or so; wondering why some photographers are so purist to make something that the camera was built to make everything for them.
I presented that question because I sent couple of my fine art images to West Coast Imaging lab, those who make fine prints and sells them know this lab very well. I was not sure how to send my images, as NEF or I do the conversion and send them as TIFF. From my experience, different program produce different conversions. When you want to sell something that your customer pay more than $3000, you don't want to sell a print that doesn't look 100% perfect. I found an article by Thom Hogan which supports my findings, for converting files, he gives PS 8 out of 10, Capture NX 9 out of 10. For me, that 9 means a lot.
This forum was created to discuss such issue and if YOU don't like a subject, YOU have no right to stop other from discussing it. I am sure it is in these argument (as you sadly call it) me, YOU, and others can learn and discover many hidden issues in photography.
Keep up the work, YOU will discover the difference between normal print vs "Fine" print, believe me it starts with little things like these that you see small. It is called "fine" in your language. Is it?
I've downloaded an expanded explanation of NX2. It really helped me. Better than Nikon's Manual which I also have.
It is: The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX2 by Jason P. Odell, PhD.
You can find it online. About $25.00
I also have CaptureOne Pro6. It is a good program and some say it is faster for stuff like wedding photos. I don't do large volume.
It has keystone correction, perhaps a better color aberration adjustment, and easier "global" masks for major adjustment. I thought I saw in the purchase agreement something about Nikon in Pro6 contract. I don't know if they are melding or not. Probably not.
I use them both, sometimes in serial. Probably not money well spent....
Hope this helps.
I would like to see some of our shots so will go to your portfolio.
the fisch
Posted by David Graham on June 11, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Troup, You wrote:
"If you captured the image correctly (to a degree), either image type will give you a great image! HERASY I know. But that is just the facts folks. You can capture an image in RAW and then spend HOURS correcting it and adjusting many small changes all over the image."
Sorry, but as an acknowledged jpg (rather than RAW) shooter you are obviously of the opinion of others (likely also of your mind-set).
The frequently repeated thought that processing a RAW file is a greatly time-consuming and arduous process is simply untrue. Indeed, in the rare instances when I do, in fact, capture a JPEG file, I process it, often entirely, in Adobe Camera RAW rather than in PS. it's quicker, easier, and the qualitative aspects of the image are at least the equal of those PPed in PS.
So when I hear a photographer spout the idea that RAW processing is too much trouble to learn or accomplish I know for certain that the speaker remembers his or her initial learning curve with PS, and assumes that broaching Adobe Camera RAW would be even more arduous. Not so! The process of adopting ACR is, in fact, facilitated greatly by the concepts, principles, and practices used and already internalized through familiarity with PS. So I suggest that if you give ACR the benefit of at least a part of the effort you initially spent on PS, you'll likely become a convert to ACR...even if you still shoot JPEG files. Will you still have the occasional shot that you need to further process in PS? Sure. But I respectfully suggest that you'll have actually saved time up to that point!
Dave Graham
East River, SD
Part of the difference you are seeing may be from the camera settings you have turned on. Capture NX is supposed to apply all those camera settings (sharpness, saturation, noise reduction, D-lighting, etc.) that you have turned on in camera to the raw files. Effectively, Capture NX should produce converted files that closely match jpegs straight from the camera if you make no further adjustments at the time of conversion.
Adobe Camera Raw does not use these in-camera parameters and only uses the white balance. And hopefully, you don't have any Auto settings turned on in ACR. You can also load various camera profiles to ACR to give different interpretations to the color channels, and perhaps one of those profiles would bring the results of ACR closer to Capture NX.
Troup:
Taking a quick look at your web site I selected the Osprey gallery at random to see the benefits of not shooting in raw. It convinced me to keep shooting in raw for better control of tonal range.
I too use NX2 to convert my NEF images. I find it much better in color rendition. I have been focusing on learning processing techniques in NX2 and also find it quite powerful. I started with the Odell CD mentioned above and have added the Nik tutorials and "Unleashing the RAW Power of Capture NX 2" a DVD by Vincent Versace. I am pretty impressed with what you can do with it.
Discussion
9 repliesI am still sure that there is better quality though can not understand why and by how much. Any idea?
I think it depends on the criteria you are using to measure image quality. What evaluation criteria are you using? Sharpness, color accuracy, shadow detail, or a few other factors? Each software package will produce differences, and it is quite possible that each result can be quite satisfactory.
To me, the ability of the "darkroom" technician to fulfill the photographer's vision is just as important (if not more) than the actual software being used. All tools have limitations and the art is in learning to work with--and beyond them.
ME
All these different methods depend on what SOME programmer decides will work in MOST cases. How many of your shots fall into this category? ALL electronic images need SOME modification to get what you SAW in your minds eye. This holds true for both film and digital.
There is no question that some people can shoot RAW and spend hours "correcting" the image. For these folks, I suppose the question of which SOFTWARE gives them a better RAW image makes sense. On the other hand, check out what the suppliers of the cameras have programmed for the jpegs...they are trying to get you the best conversion possible for YOU to allow for your changes for what YOU saw.
Ok, I have lost some friends and gained some new ones!
Troup
I respect your opinion. You remind me of myself when I just started photography, some 10 years ago or so; wondering why some photographers are so purist to make something that the camera was built to make everything for them.
I presented that question because I sent couple of my fine art images to West Coast Imaging lab, those who make fine prints and sells them know this lab very well. I was not sure how to send my images, as NEF or I do the conversion and send them as TIFF. From my experience, different program produce different conversions. When you want to sell something that your customer pay more than $3000, you don't want to sell a print that doesn't look 100% perfect. I found an article by Thom Hogan which supports my findings, for converting files, he gives PS 8 out of 10, Capture NX 9 out of 10. For me, that 9 means a lot.
This forum was created to discuss such issue and if YOU don't like a subject, YOU have no right to stop other from discussing it. I am sure it is in these argument (as you sadly call it) me, YOU, and others can learn and discover many hidden issues in photography.
Keep up the work, YOU will discover the difference between normal print vs "Fine" print, believe me it starts with little things like these that you see small. It is called "fine" in your language. Is it?
I've downloaded an expanded explanation of NX2. It really helped me. Better than Nikon's Manual which I also have.
It is: The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX2 by Jason P. Odell, PhD.
You can find it online. About $25.00
I also have CaptureOne Pro6. It is a good program and some say it is faster for stuff like wedding photos. I don't do large volume.
It has keystone correction, perhaps a better color aberration adjustment, and easier "global" masks for major adjustment. I thought I saw in the purchase agreement something about Nikon in Pro6 contract. I don't know if they are melding or not. Probably not.
I use them both, sometimes in serial. Probably not money well spent....
Hope this helps.
I would like to see some of our shots so will go to your portfolio.
the fisch
"If you captured the image correctly (to a degree), either image type will give you a great image! HERASY I know. But that is just the facts folks. You can capture an image in RAW and then spend HOURS correcting it and adjusting many small changes all over the image."
Sorry, but as an acknowledged jpg (rather than RAW) shooter you are obviously of the opinion of others (likely also of your mind-set).
The frequently repeated thought that processing a RAW file is a greatly time-consuming and arduous process is simply untrue. Indeed, in the rare instances when I do, in fact, capture a JPEG file, I process it, often entirely, in Adobe Camera RAW rather than in PS. it's quicker, easier, and the qualitative aspects of the image are at least the equal of those PPed in PS.
So when I hear a photographer spout the idea that RAW processing is too much trouble to learn or accomplish I know for certain that the speaker remembers his or her initial learning curve with PS, and assumes that broaching Adobe Camera RAW would be even more arduous. Not so! The process of adopting ACR is, in fact, facilitated greatly by the concepts, principles, and practices used and already internalized through familiarity with PS. So I suggest that if you give ACR the benefit of at least a part of the effort you initially spent on PS, you'll likely become a convert to ACR...even if you still shoot JPEG files. Will you still have the occasional shot that you need to further process in PS? Sure. But I respectfully suggest that you'll have actually saved time up to that point!
Dave Graham
East River, SD
Part of the difference you are seeing may be from the camera settings you have turned on. Capture NX is supposed to apply all those camera settings (sharpness, saturation, noise reduction, D-lighting, etc.) that you have turned on in camera to the raw files. Effectively, Capture NX should produce converted files that closely match jpegs straight from the camera if you make no further adjustments at the time of conversion.
Adobe Camera Raw does not use these in-camera parameters and only uses the white balance. And hopefully, you don't have any Auto settings turned on in ACR. You can also load various camera profiles to ACR to give different interpretations to the color channels, and perhaps one of those profiles would bring the results of ACR closer to Capture NX.
Troup:
Taking a quick look at your web site I selected the Osprey gallery at random to see the benefits of not shooting in raw. It convinced me to keep shooting in raw for better control of tonal range.