nikon capture NX vs. Adobe Raw to recover over exposed details

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bohemian, Nov 11, 2007.

  1. bohemian

    bohemian Guest

    Hi all... I talked to a nikon rep who tried to convince me that
    capture NX would do a better job than adobe Raw (I have CS3) at
    recovering details in an overexposed image. He even said it would
    substitute for a 3 stop ND filter for shooting moving water in
    daylight at a half a second..... I think he is full of S*$!.... or am
    I missing something really cool in CaptureNX??

    TIA
    Peter
     
    bohemian, Nov 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. bohemian

    Paul Furman Guest

    Perhaps slightly better but not 3 seconds in daylight, that would just
    be a bad idea even if it were remotely possible. You can download the
    light version & test, it's not bad, the free version is just real
    awkward to make individual custom adjustments.
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. bohemian

    flambe Guest

    The Nikon Raw converter uses a different approach then Adobe to make
    regional adjustments through "control points."
    The adjustments you make in the Adobe Raw Converter are global and affect
    the entire image. Any adjujstment you make is non-reversible once you open
    the image in CS3 itself, unless you want to go back to the ARC and start
    over, reflecting a total meltdown in the Apple coddled brains of Adobe's
    software design engineers while they were coding the ARC.
    Nikon Control points make regional adjustments for which you would otherwise
    have to use masks and layers in CS3 to achieve the same effect.
    Digital image capture does not have 3 stops of latitudue. What you can do is
    increase the apparent latitude of an image by bringing up details from
    underexposed areas within acceptable noise parameters. Digital image capture
    has almost no latitude for overexposure, something you can easily verify
    yourself and software cannot bring back data that is not there to begin
    with.
    In my experience Nikon Capture is no better than Adobe in achieving the
    apparent increase in latitude from a raw image file. Depending on your work
    habits and aesthetics Nikon NXcan be a lot more convenient or faster than
    CS3. However Photoshop remains indispensable for final image processing and
    printing.
     
    flambe, Nov 11, 2007
    #3
  4. bohemian

    bohemian Guest

    boy I sure agree with tha, the overexposure lattitue issue! I DO
    want to play wiht control points, however... thanks for pointing that
    out...
     
    bohemian, Nov 11, 2007
    #4
  5. If you want "overexposure latitude", all you need to do
    is set your camera's EV compensation by whatever amount
    you need, and then use a good RAW to image conversion
    program that will allow you to adjust curves and color
    saturation. I wouldn't recommend it with digital, but
    it is precisely what is typically done with film.

    The fact is that digital photography today has more
    dynamic range than is available with similar film based
    cameras. And that is what defines "latitude". But with
    digital we have no reason to waste dynamic range on
    "overexposure latitude".

    Of course generally the way to get the most out of a
    digital camera is a technique which does not exist with
    film cameras. That is to use either a histogram or a
    blink on over exposure LCD display, and set the exposure
    right at the absolute maximum that can be recorded.
    Doing so will put all of the "latitude" (excess dynamic
    range) into the shadows rather than waste it on
    highlights.

    The point of course is that with film that sort of
    feedback loop (looking at the LCD display) does not
    allow verification that the exposure will in fact
    produce the most dynamic range until it is probably much
    too late to take another exposure corrected for whatever
    error was determined to exist.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 11, 2007
    #5
  6. bohemian

    JR Guest

    NX is the BEST converter for Nikon RAW images....it has the best color,
    clarity, detail, etc...and is much faster as it uses the in camera
    settings as your "start point"...as opposed to starting from scratch
    with every image...so if you got it right 90% at the time you
    shoot....you are pretty much there and ont have much more than some
    cleanup....once thats done, editing in CS3 is great...I use both and
    dont think one is a substitute for the other.

    JR
     
    JR, Nov 14, 2007
    #6
  7. bohemian

    spydersweb34 Guest

    A question for JR. I quote the end of your last reply in which you
    say
    "once thats done, editing in CS3 is great...I use both and dont think
    one is a substitute for the other"

    I also double-treat my images in NX / Photoshop. I tend to agree that
    color, etc
    is better in NX, but then when you have to do serious retouching, you
    must be in PhotoShop.
    It would be really nice if NX would allow you to cut/copy/paste
    images. That way you could flip into photoshop, do you your edit, then
    paste it back
    into NX for the save. It's a no-brainer and I have no idea why Nikon
    doesn't allow this.
    When I have to go from one to the other, I save out of NX as a Tiff,
    but
    I tell you it's a pain in the arse.

    Is there a more direct/ easier method for this type o image
    treatment?
    What type of image are you saving out of Capture NX before going into
    photoshop?
     
    spydersweb34, Dec 2, 2007
    #7
  8. bohemian

    flambe Guest

    NX saves a wonking 48bit tiff whenever you open an image into Photoshop.
    What more do you want?
    If you are noodling in Photoshop then you should save in the PSD format so
    you do not lose all those lovely layers, no?
    I tend to delete the big NX tiffs after saving in PSD to avoid duplicate
    hard drive waste.
    I agree that for many images NX is more convenient than the CS3 converter
    and for some adjustments the control points are more convenient than using
    layers and masks.
    Part of the convenience of NX is because of the complete mess that the Adobe
    converter has become with functions shoehorned into it that duplicate what
    is in Photoshop or would be better off in Photoshop so they can be applied
    in layers, functions that look like but do not function like their PS
    equivalents and to a great extent the poor job Adobe has done documenting
    how to use many of the adjustments in the converter (some of which are
    marginally useful to begin with).
    Lately I click through the Adobe converter and make simple adjustments in
    Lab Color that really simplify basic image processing.
    Since NX is nearly useless for printing, so I do not understand why you
    want to go back to NX after processing in Photoshop. You can flatten your
    PSD and save it as a tiff if you want to go back to NX.
     
    flambe, Dec 2, 2007
    #8
  9. bohemian

    spydersweb34 Guest

    I think you are misunderstanding my question. I **AM** saving a TIFF
    out of NX then opening that TIFF in PhotoShop. I just see the step of
    saving out the TIFF, opening it in PS, only to then delete it - it
    seems to be a bit inefficient. This was the whole point - figure out a
    way in this dual program processing to cut out needless time
    wastings. My question was and still is - is there an easier/more
    eficient way to do this than what I just described?
     
    spydersweb34, Dec 2, 2007
    #9
  10. bohemian

    spydersweb34 Guest

    Why would I want to paste it back into NX? To avoid dupilication. If I
    start in NX, then I finish with a JPG in NX. Just cleaner that way.
    It's really shortsighted of Nikon/Nik not to allow pasting into the
    program. There are no other graphics programs I know of that prevent
    you from cut/paste.
     
    spydersweb34, Dec 2, 2007
    #10
  11. bohemian

    spydersweb34 Guest

    PS- I also agree with you abt Lab Color. There, it is possible to
    manipulate contrast, shadows, etc just working on the brightness layer
    without ever touching the color. I've also found that if you just
    work on the brightness layer you can sharpen the hell out of it with
    no apparent bad effects (done in moderation of course).
     
    spydersweb34, Dec 2, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.