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!

PSE6 v Capture

Discussion in 'Nikon Capture and View NX' started by threecats, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. K, to begin I barely have the time or patience to learn one. I am a bit more comfortable with Elements cause that's all I had till I got Capture included with the d300. I was enamored with that upoint when I saw the blurb but have yet to delve into it. That and Capture is sloooooooooow.

    Is there anything that is better, or easier, more logical, or unique about Capture over Elements? My needs are not great. I clone out flaws, crop artistically, and do minor lighting/contrast changes.
  2. TomaS


    Aug 3, 2006
    Corrales, NM
    Given your description of needs, ability, & patience, I would recommend PSE. A much more intuitive user interface, broader range of editing tools, faster, and more in the way of third party help (books) and add-ins.
  3. Thanks. Seem to be leaning that way every time I open an image. Lovely area of NM you are in.
  4. TomaS


    Aug 3, 2006
    Corrales, NM
    The one 'better' about Capture is its ability to wring the best possible image out of a RAW file. PSE cannot touch it for that job. If you are a 'serious' shooter, that is a BIG 'better' and makes it worth the effort to learn (and the resources to make it run well). I am hooked on it, but it took a long time to get there.
  5. Though I think everything about Capture NX is more intuitive than PSE, I fundamentally agree with everything else Tomas mentioned.

    I do want to clarify though that Capture NX2 does not provide any cloning other than when getting rid of a very small item such as a speck of dust on the sensor or a small blemish on a person's skin. Even that is included only in NX2, not NX, and I think NX was included with your camera. My point is that if you want to do any cloning, you will need to use PSE for that.

    Given the situation that you describe, I see no reason for you to make the switch to Capture NX despite that I rave about NX and NX2.
  6. Tomas, unless the control-point technology is part and parcel to wringing the best possible image of the file (I don't think it is), I would defintely add control points to the category of significantly better.
  7. TomaS


    Aug 3, 2006
    Corrales, NM
    Control point technology is available in other editions of the NIK software for PS2/3 and PSE (and it should work with Paint Shop Pro too).
  8. Ok so what do you guys do when you need more extensive cloning, etc? Do you work on the nef in capture up to a point and finish certain things in PS or another?
    I'm not huge on manipulation but I sure don't have a problem removing a street sign in a landscape yet it seems that you would use capture to a point and then do more PP in another program?

  9. Yes. To clarify, my workflow is shown below:

    1) Make all adjustments to the image in NX2 except do not sharpen.
    EDIT: 1A) Save a JPEG of the same size as the NEF.
    EDIT: 1B) Open the JPEG in PSE.
    2) Make all edits of content (remove all street signs) in PSE.
    EDIT: 2A) Open the JPEG in NX2.
    3) Finish post-processing (sharpening, straightening and cropping) in NX2 (though there is no reason not to do it in PSE).
  10. K Mike, forgive my denseness but PS 'understands" what you have done to your original raw file in NX and vice versa? btw I am using nx1.3
  11. stayathomedad


    Mar 11, 2008

    I'm sure everyone is giving you great advice... but here is my own thoughts without reading what others have written...

    I have both... and while I would like to learn and use capture, it's just not possible... it's sooooooooooo slooooooow. It's not worth the effort. The only thing I would do is use to to batch out some NR...

    Why not just use ACR for 90% of the post work and then just open up elements when you need to use USM or the clone stamp.

    It's what I do... ACR in PSE6 is enough for most of my minor changes...
  12. TomaS


    Aug 3, 2006
    Corrales, NM
    Actually, the new NX2 'Auto Retouch brush' is not a bad 'clone' tool. Check out this before and after (with minimal effort):

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    View attachment 229681
  13. Go back to Post #10 and check out my edits. I think they clear things up. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
  14. WOW! Tomas, I've tried using the retouch brush on far less difficult situations and wasn't nearly so successful. That's very impressive.
  15. K i will print this or save it with all the other stuff I forget. Thanks
  16. The only problem with this workflow is everytime you edit a jpeg and save it you loss data, and therefore you degrade the image. Besides saving in the versions within NX, one can save as Tiff, which is what I do, after pp in NX, then do any finishing up in CS3.

  17. My understanding is that that's true only if the JPEG is saved using the same filename. Anyone concerned about degradation would simply save the second JPEG as a different filename and delete the first JPEG. Your solution of using a TIFF is also fine so long as there is no concern about the far larger files.
  18. Well, the other reason I save in Tiff is to work in 16-bit. I do not like to get rid of anymore of the information than need be before the end result. That is why I upgraded to CS3, much fewer 16-bit restrictions. I also print from the tiff and then save a jpeg for the web. As far as space goes, it is really, really cheap these days, so do not consider it an issue. I guess if I were to only save jpegs, I would work in the tiff's till the final edit then save as jpeg and delete the tiff.

  19. Mike you are misinformed about this. The act of saving a JPEG is what degrades the image.

    TIFF is a lossless format but uses huge amounts of space. If I am finishing a picture in PS, I use TIFF as the transfer format, then save as a PSD and delete the TIFF.
  20. Thanks, Tom and Craig.

    For the record, 99% of my images that are JPEGs are web output files. Considering the small size and the resolution of monitors and the like used to view the Internet, I have a gut feeling that the loss of data won't be noticeable when viewing on the Internet.

    I don't want to inadvertantly hijack the thread, which as a reminder is about PSE vs Capture, but with all the discussion over the years about JPEGs being a lossy form of compression, I have never ever seen a post mentioning that the difference can be seen. If someone wants to discuss that, I would appreciate it if someone would start a new thread using 100% crops as examples and provide a link to the thread. I'm sure I would learn a lot from it.
  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.