If You Are Nikon User, Do you Use Capture NX?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sblasl, Jun 19, 2007.

  1. sblasl macrumors 6502a


    Apr 25, 2004
    Heber Springs, AR
    I have read that to really get the best results out of your Nikon RAW images that you really need to use Capture NX. Is this the spiel coming from Nikon or is this an accurate statement?

    If you are using a Nikon, are you using Capture NX?


  2. jayb2000 macrumors 6502a


    Apr 18, 2003
    RI -> CA -> ME
    I am not, I am using Picassa until 10.5 comes out.
    Then I will probably use lightroom or aperture, going to test them both.

    Oh, I shoot with a D200 if that matters.
  3. Karpfish macrumors 6502a


    Sep 24, 2006
    Nope, Lightroom.
    When I dl'ed the NX demo i thought it had a very clunky interface, which I didn't like.
  4. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816


    May 5, 2007
    Tried capture once, version 4.3, never again, after conversion the colours seemed flat,now use CS3, Photoshop is the Daddie,
    but a few months back i was standing next to a young lady purchasing her
    1st Nikon DSLR, and the 'expert' at Jessops gave it the Nikon Spiel when she asked about shooting in RAW,"to get the best blah blah blah Nikon capture NX."
  5. Westside guy macrumors 603

    Westside guy

    Oct 15, 2003
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    I don't use it, although I've heard very good things about it. I keep meaning to trial it...

    Right now I just pull the NEFs directly into Aperture, and I think Aperture will always be at the center of my workflow. So unless Capture can actually modify exiting NEF images without a format change (meaning saving the changes as NEF rather than as a TIFF, PNG, etc.) it's somewhat difficult to see exactly where it'd fit in. I could see using it as a pre-processor, if that makes sense - but I'd still want the flexibility to do RAW-level adjustments in Aperture.
  6. wronski macrumors 6502

    May 8, 2005
  7. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Mar 21, 2006
  8. hanschien macrumors 6502


    Oct 2, 2006
    Houston, TX
    While NX's UI is clunky, the results you get from the RAW conversion is superior to Aperture, Lightroom and ACR because in-camera optimizations like saturation, tone, sharpness, etc... are ignored.

    I used to swear by Aperture until I gave NX a try. Now my workflow consists of a batch conversion to JPG from NX and then import them all to Aperture to tag and catalog.
  9. simie macrumors 6502a


    Aug 26, 2004
    I have it, but never use it. I mostly use Aperture and Photoshop.
  10. James.Paul macrumors regular

    May 19, 2002
    Northallerton, England
    I use Nikon Capture and find it's interface quite awkward to use. However, the program seems to take advantage of Nikon camera features far better than any other 3rd party application (includes Aperture, Lightroom etc) and for me it is far quicker to get the results I want. I do have to use something like Photoshop Elements though to use the healing brush and add borders for dust removal and the addition of borders.
  11. dakis macrumors member

    Aug 23, 2004
    The main reason why anybody would use Capture NX is the fact that NX is the only software that actually reads the additional image-info that Nikon cameras place in their NEF/RAW files. If you set your colors to "vivid" in-camera, NX will display the image accordingly while all other RAW processors will discard that info and overwrite them with a standard profile. Other settings, like noise reduction etc. are also lost in NEFs.

    I personally use Aperture and PS CS3 for image editing because I like to edit myself rather than having my camera do some pre-processing.

    I have tried NX and found it quite nice for some tasks (e.g. easily and quickly changing the exposure of selected image areas) but I personally don't think it's worth the money (for me).


  12. Plymouthbreezer macrumors 601


    Feb 27, 2005
  13. thr33face macrumors 6502

    May 28, 2006
    i am using Lightroom

    i heard good things about Capture NX so I gave it a try. It is super flexible and allows for far more than Lightroom but the User-Interface just didn't appeal to me.
  14. compuwar macrumors 601


    Oct 5, 2006
    Northern/Central VA
    In the comparisons I've seen, no 3rd party software is able to best NX in a side-by-side comparison. I use it probably 70% of the time.
  15. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Oct 9, 2005
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    I have NX loaded into my Mac Pro but for the most part I use Aperture or occasionally CS2 (haven't gotten around to updating to CS3 yet). The once or twice that I took a look at NX I was not comfortable so backed off.... For me, Aperture fits the bill 99.95% of the time.
  16. chriscorbin macrumors 6502


    Feb 17, 2007
    Vallejo, CA
    Aperture and CS3 all the way the only reason i have to use Capture NX is to do tethered shooting
  17. JeffTL macrumors 6502a

    Dec 18, 2003
    I find Lightroom better because of its organizational features. If I need full use of in-camera optimizations, I just shoot JPEG and put that into Lightroom, but I've been almost all raw lately and everything seems as nice as ever.
  18. Piarco macrumors 68030


    Jun 24, 2004
    I installed it but never used it - Aperture all the way...
  19. freebooter macrumors 65816


    Feb 24, 2005
    Daegu, South Korea
    I like Lightroom better. I feel like I can adjust more and easier.
  20. drbrog macrumors member

    Apr 29, 2005
    NX= Yes!

    I feel Capture NX is a terrific product. On my Mac Pro, it is very fast and is a big improvement over NC 4.4. NX is a little slow on my powerbook.
    I believe that NX processes RAW files better than ACR and I love the control points.

  21. compuwar macrumors 601


    Oct 5, 2006
    Northern/Central VA
    Going from NEF to JPEG between Adobe Camera Raw from CS3 (ACR,) Aperture (APR) and Capture NX (NX,) I see a pixel shifts, with NX and ACR being fairly close (probably a pixel difference,) and APR shifting things right a few more pixels. Doing white balance with each of the NEFs produced different results- though I may have been off in my WB point selection between images.

    Contrast was different, likely due to ACR settings. Overall, I thought the NX JPEG was more "true" and the ACR JPEG was next. APR's rendering was disappointing compared to the other two, and I'll probably stop using it for JPEG conversion unless I can tweak the settings to make the results better.

    Zooming in to 500% there were clear differences in details, though I'll have to play with sharpness settings to be confident of the results.

    When I'm near a photo printer, I'll probably do a print-from-NEF test as well as test the TIFF converters of each program. This may change my workflow if I find I have to import to NX, then export out- I haven't checked Bibble Pro yet, but it's going to get tested too and then I'll figure out at what point I'm going to have to do wide angle lens correction.


    I simply made three copies of the same NEF file, opened one in each converter, used a wall to set a white point, saved to maximum JPEG, then opened the JPEGs in Photoshop, turned two of them to layers and clicked on and off the view for each layer to compare them two at a time. Then I zoomed in to 100% and 500% and compared the details.
  22. uMac macrumors 6502

    Mar 27, 2007
    No, I use photoshop.
    I'm going to be trying out lightroom & apeture to see if they add anything to quicken my workflow.
  23. bartelby macrumors Core


    Jun 16, 2004
    I find all Nikon software to be very slow and clunky.
  24. juanm macrumors 65816


    May 1, 2006
    Fury 161

Share This Page