Raw Convertors

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Stevens, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
    convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
    Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
    Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
    applies to Nikon cameras.

    The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
    familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
    Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
    his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
    Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
    lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
    difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
    but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jul 29, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Absolutely my thought too.

    I've no idea what Nikon were dreaming about when they designed
    the interface but as far as quality imaging goes... Nikon
    Capture 2NX is unsurpassed.

    Second best is Capture one 4. Amazing noise control and almost
    as good at pulling detail and colours as Nikon's own software.

    I had a lot of problems with my D700 RAW files. It seems most
    RAW converters can't read the Nikon files properly and do a
    'dirty' conversion.

    I bought DxO Optics Pro some time ago but it had to be
    upgraded to Elite version before reading the D700's files. A
    Total an utter waste of good money. OK with Canon files but no
    way in this world is it worth a cent with Nikon D700 files.

    I just wish Nikon Capture 2NX would read s5 Fuji file. These
    are still an amazing camera but the Fuji supplied RAW
    converter is junk...

    Interestingly...I bought Paint Shop Pro in a duty free shop as
    I exited the US last month ($40) I think from memory. Just for
    something to read on the plane. It opens Fuji files pretty
    nicely but there is no RAW adjustment beforehand. It's not
    that good on D900 stuff, blowing the highlights where the
    Nikon software preserves it.

    A couple of examples here:
    http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/tutorials/Paint-shopVNikon-NX2.htm

    If you're interested.. :)
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I have found it to make a reasonable job of D300 files. I fed it a
    D300 NEF heavily edited by NX2 and found that PSP did what appeared
    to be a good job of opening that also, complete with all its edits. My
    only complaint was that it was extremely slow (I went away and had
    lunch). I am still coming to grips with PSP so I'm not in a position
    to comment on its quality.


    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jul 30, 2009
    #3
  4. Eric Stevens

    ray Guest

    Just out of curiosity, have you tried ufraw?
     
    ray, Jul 30, 2009
    #4
  5. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I think I tried it on the raw files from the D70 but abandoned it. I
    haven't tried it on the D300.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jul 30, 2009
    #5

  6. Yes... PSP is not too bad on D90, D60 and my old D200 files
    either. I'm beginning to suspect the hi ISO lo noise results
    from a D700 are a hell of a lot of software processing and not
    much at all to do with sensor technology. Time will tell I guess!
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 30, 2009
    #6
  7. It's not real brilliant on the FF Nikons. My new D3 just
    arrived an hour ago and I tried its files on PSP. Same sort of
    thing as with the D700. No highlight preservation... Which
    confirms my thoughts that software plays a serious part in
    producing the results Nikon are getting.
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 30, 2009
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens

    ray Guest

    Thanks for the information - that would tend to make Nikon a no-go for
    me, then, since I'm totally Linux.
     
    ray, Jul 30, 2009
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens

    Chris H Guest

    Strange decision... You base your photographic gear on a computer OS?
     
    Chris H, Jul 30, 2009
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens

    Chris H Guest

    In message <zUicm.62197$>, David J
    For photography I choose the cameras/lenses first and the support
    computer second.
    Or have a dual boot machine
     
    Chris H, Jul 30, 2009
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens

    me Guest


    Bingo!
     
    me, Jul 30, 2009
    #11
  12. You've gotten the wrong idea Chris...
    Owning Full Frame Nikon cameras means developing the RAW
    images from them in Capture 2NX or suffering a degrading of
    the potential in them. This has been my findings after buying
    several RAW development programs that work very well on the
    smaller sensor Nikons and other brands of camera.

    I don't know why but I suspect that much of the information
    needed to demosaic a full Frame Nikon RAW file is unreadable
    by most programs. This does not happen with crop sensor Nikons.

    The most significant examples I have but won't post publicly
    are wedding photos. A big shift to red, noise that isn't there
    when processed with either of the capture programs and a
    miss-match of colour bleeding, all begin to occur with ISO of
    32,000 or higher. None of this happens with Capture 2 NX. It
    is constant between my D700 and the new D3 files.

    The only reason someone would choose to use Linux for
    processing RAW files - and be limited to using Gimp to edit
    them is choice.

    I'd think - although I've been too busy to do any tests, that
    a D90, a D3000 or and CCD and crop sensor Nikon camera would
    work quite OK for Linus users.

    It's just the Full frame Nikons using high ISO and RAW capture
    where the Nikon software is light years ahead of rivals.
    Capture-one from Phase-one isn't far behind incidentally but
    it too, lacks the fine grained tuning Nikon software has. It's
    the God awful interface Nikon provide that pisses me off so
    much. What ever happened to Bill Gate's dream of Windows
    having a common interface?
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 31, 2009
    #12
  13. That would depend on the RAW converter being able to
    understand *ALL* the instruction in a given RAW file for
    demosaicing the image.
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 31, 2009
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens

    YDOD Guest

    With the present tendency of camera manufacturers to embed color fringing
    correction and also I believe pincushion and barrel distortion correction
    into their proprietary RAW conversion software, it seems to me that we are
    pretty well limited to the camera makers software. What do you think the
    chances are that an independent graphics software company will be able to
    keep up with the never ending influx of new camera models and new lens? And
    if they do try, then they may face all of the problems that cad companies
    face trying to keep up with Autodesk and its changes which are made
    primarily to make life difficult for its competitors.
     
    YDOD, Jul 31, 2009
    #14
  15. I think that about sums up the whole industry.
    Where I have a few issues is in people expecting Linux type
    openness from profit making companies.

    I spent about $200 on Capture 2NX over and above the many
    thousands I spent on Nikon cameras. It should have come free
    with the camera.

    I found Canon's DPP (that did come free) to be a better RAW
    developer (for 5D files) than Adobe's ACR yet, a lot of
    photographers believe and expect these 3rd party RAW
    processors to be as good as the ones put out by the camera
    maker. Why is that?

    Capture has a facility after demosaicing to edit in your
    favourite editor, DPP has a "edit in photoshop" choice after
    development. I can declare any program to be the default
    editor with all the camera maker's supplied demosaic algorithms.

    Why do do people still insist Adobe and their ACR or some
    other unrelated software developer should be able to have
    access to trade secrets just so they can open and demosaic
    commercially guarded image files?

    The fact Kodachrome absolutely had to be processed in Kodak's
    own 14 step, patented formula chemicals - and by Kodak, didn't
    stop people using it, why should it be any different now?
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 31, 2009
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens

    ray Guest

    Well, if the computer software cannot adequately translate the data, it
    would be pretty useless, wouldn't it?
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2009
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens

    ray Guest

    That would depend a little on which is more important to you.
    I don't 'dual boot' - though I do, on ocassion run another Linux
    distribution in a virtual machine. I don't have a legal copy of MS and
    don't intend to buy one - and I eschew WINE.
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2009
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens

    ray Guest

    I fear you may be correct. Ironic, isn't it? Makers shoot themselves in
    the foot by not releasing the information to allow proper decoders to be
    made, so certain folks wind up not buying their products. BTW - don't
    give me the 'proprietary information' garbage - everyone in the industry
    already knows it.
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2009
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens

    Miles Bader Guest

    For the most part I think it's simple conservatism and fear of the unknown.

    They may try to keep up technically, but attitudes change verrrry slowly
    at big Japanese companies....

    -Miles
     
    Miles Bader, Jul 31, 2009
    #19
  20. Pardon me for presuming you were human Floyd. Us mere mortals
    sometimes have problems with "fine tuning". I personally have
    problems trying to get some programs like the crap released to
    the public *FREE* under a GPL - to do what commercial programs do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snowy_Owl_Barrow_Alaska.jpg

    No less than five areas of this image which is well within the
    capabilities of *any* DSLR, including the pretty shocking E300
    Olympus... Are blown off the planet.

    Was there supposed to be any detail in this image Floyd?
    http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/akforum/d3f_6875.jpg

    Here's one I took long before the Nikon and Fuji put anything
    I took with a Canon to shame.
    http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/gull-on-hi.htm

    Here's one from Capture2 NX:
    http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/preview.htm

    Getting the idea Floyd? The software you are using might be OK
    for happy snaps but when it gets down to serious development
    of images... I hate to be the one to enlighten you Floyd but
    that Linux stuff is brilliant for Internet hosting but sadly
    lacking when it comes to image processing capabilities.


    That you actually put your name to those images and then have
    the gall to contradict someone trying to provide honest
    information to one of the flock, is, I suppose as stupid as
    the time you told Paul Furman he'd win a case I was about to
    launch against him for theft of copyright, after he stole my
    images and tried to copyright them.

    Your idea of the "fair Use" clause of the copyright act didn't
    quite hold water then and your claims about .NEF files and
    DCraw doesn't hold up now.

    Floyd. Why do you do it? Worse still, why do you keep giving
    out bullshit for advise when real experts are telling how it
    is? Whatever it is Floyd... You really ought to stop making an
    idiot out of yourself. Pretty soon it won't be Floyd from
    Alaska it's be Floyd the idiot.
     
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 31, 2009
    #20
    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.