1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Nikon v Adobe

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Chris101, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
  2. I still seem to get better color and slightly cleaner images out of Nikon Capture than I do with ACR. I've given up my argument that Capture has more advanced features. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It does seem to have a few more tools for working directly on the RAW image than ACR does, but I think it's my use of the LCH editor that works better for me than the more simple Curves implementation found in ACR. Maybe it's just me, but I really wish I could get the same look in ACR as I do in Capture. It would make things a little easier.
  3. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
    Hey Christian, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Software is a nearly religous topic. What one person can do with one tool, another prefers another tool for. I don't seem to be able to get the same range or 'pop' out of images I process with NC, as I can with ACR but that's a combination of my own style and of my familiarity with the two programs.

    I find that I need to actually change my exposure (lower it) to get a similar image out of NC. This leads to a general darkening of all the values. With ACR on the other hand, I can lower the exposure while increasing the brightness to extend the range into the highlights.
  4. But can't you still do that with NC as well? The only major difference I personally see between the two is the fully featured Curves and LCH editor NC has. If I don't need to tweak precise things, I view the two fairly equal for me. So far I have found that exposure compensation, brightness and saturation are equally useable between either. Excpet that I think you can adjust the exposure along a farther range in ACR than in NC, which is limited to 4 stops I think.

    You're right it can be religious, but I'm not really debating the two. I'm just trying to learn how to use either of them better than I do now. And how other people use them. If one of them is better at a certain thing, it doesn't matter if I don't know how. If I'm better at using one of them, I like to know if there's something I don't know about the other. Choices choices....
  5. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
    That, and ACR does highlight recovery very well, while you need to be more aware of not hitting the right wall with NC. I do like NC's curves implimentation, and I think so do ACR's developers, as it seems that is the direction they are moving.

    Oh, and by the way, here is what Thomas Knoll has to say about the new level of compatability between ACR and Nikon's NEF format:

    I've known of this for some time, but am under an nda, so I couldn't say anything, which is why I've stayed out of this debate until now.
  6. You know what I would like to see, and can't believe we dont have it? The biggest pain to me is simply that ACR does not read any of the custom settings made in-camera. When I open an NEF file I have to start from scratch even if I've adjusted all my chosen settings in the camera menu banks to shoot a specific scene the way I want to. Its just time consuming and seems so rediculous that ACR will ignore all of that. When I open my file in NC, at least my starting point is already where it was when I shot the image. Why should we have to configure everything from scratch when we set up our cameras for what we want to begin with? I can't believe this isn't a bigger issue to people than WB. I mean ok, you can still adjust those settings after the fact, where with WB you couldn't, but that means people wanting to alter WB were forced to use NC anyway, so they never had an issue with losing the other settings. If I'm going to use ACR as a standard, it at least has to meet the basic abilities of NC before I can use it without looking back. It just irks me that I have to spend extra time redesigning my basic settings every time I use ACR, because in my opinion the ACR auto profile feature isn't up to snuff. When I open my NEF with NC it is close to dead on what I was expecting, with very little adjustments necessary, because I already did all that in the camera. And I do keep separate settings banks for different types of shooting. Do you happen to have any inside information about the future of this little pet peave? Sorry for the rant.
  7. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    If you're waiting for Adobe to start pickup up settings like Hue, Tone Curve, Saturation, and Sharpness from the NEF I think you'll be waiting for a while. ACR is not camera specific, so there is not a direct correlation between the in-camera settings for any given model and ACR's own controls.

    That said you don't have to keep the out-of-the-box defaults in ACR, you can change the default settings to whatever you like. I have the "Auto" checkboxes all disabled, and have changed a few other default settings as well, to the point that the initial preview looks pretty good in most cases.

    Honestly if the in-camera settings are important to you it's probably best to stick with Nikon Capture, or maybe the Nikon NEF Photoshop plugin (which should give you the same results as the "default" conversion in NC, though of course you won't have the ability to change most settings after the fact).
  8. gho


    Feb 7, 2005
  9. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
    I couldn't agree with this more Jeff. I use internal settings for convienence only, low contrast, auto WB, normal sharpening. This improves the LCD image for chimping.

    Christian, you use the in-camera settings, so NC makes sense for your workflow. I apply my own settings with ACR and throw away the ones from the camera, cause I don't want the camera applying things like sharpening, wb or a curve anyway. The controls I get from ACR allow a much greater range of possibilities for these parameters when converting. I even do black and white with ACR now. As I said before though, I do envy NC's curve tool.
  10. Chris, I prefer NC's curve tool as well, mostly because I can make it much larger and see more detail with it (although it is rather slow to update the histogram with D2x files).

    What I would really like is a curve tool with all of the current NC features that also shows the multiple colors like ACR's histogram. I find WB adjustments much more intuitive with ACR, but I still use NC for NEF processing just because of all of the other workflow that I typically use and have grown accustomed to.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2005
  11. Anything works if there is a good enough work-around. My only point is that it will be an incomplete product until it reads more than just WB from the RAW. There are different types of things I shoot that do streamline a workflow if I keep separate settings for those things. It's not an enormous deal, but it is time consuming to go back and redo that every time. I can't believe its anything more than a matter of time before ACR will read the other settings from the RAW, as well as have a better implementation of Curves or an LCH similar to NC. For now, I like many others, seem to switch between NC and ACR for a variety of different reasons, and that is a major pain and bump in anyone's workflow. If I don't have to do any other post-processing after converting from RAW, NC is a much more streamlined method, and I really can't see the benefit of using ACR just to convert from RAW if there's no other processing to be done. But at this point both apps have a way to go. Just have to wait and see what either company has in store for us.

    As an aside, has anyone found any other 3rd party converter worth fooling with? Like Bibble or etc.?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.