WOW. Capture NX2 vs. ACR

Discussion in 'Retouching and Post Processing' started by lisa_h, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    I was amazed when I did this little test here. I opened each one and converted to jpeg. That's it (I did crop the first one obviously). I didn't realize there was such a difference?? Why such a difference? NX2 is so slow but if the results are this dramatic.............:eek:

    This one was opened in NX2

    2913485857_c8b64b5206_o.png

    And this one in ACR

    View attachment 263204
     
  2. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Well, the NEF files will have some proprietary information that the 3rd party companies don't have access to with regards to reading data.
     
  3. As Phillip said, NX2 applies any in camera settings you have, like saturation, contrast and sharpening to the image when you open it. ACR does cannot read these settings, and therefore cannot apply them. So, this means you're left with a relatively flat image as a starting point. Of course, you can very easily make your photo look like that in ACR, but it will take adjusting a few sliders.
     
  4. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    That makes sense. Thanks guys :)
     
  5. I suspect if you use the new beta camera profiles that ACR has for your camera, you will get similar results.

    Having said that, I think it's unfair to compare the default processing of NX2 and ACR. ACR is put at a disadvantage since it needs to consider RAW processing of images from cameras not made by Nikon.

    And who is to say that the NX2 default image is better? I admit to preferring it, but not everyone does.

    In the end, you can get similar results by using either piece of software. NX2 is just tailor made for your camera, so it's a bit easier to accomplish this.
     
  6. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    I'm NOT comparing the 2 per say. I am saying that clearly there is a difference between the two and I am asking why. l, personally, like the look of the capture nx one better and if I can open my images and have them look the way I want them to sooc w/ out tweaking them then that saves me time. I'm not saying anyone else prefers the capture image over the ACR image. I'm saying I DO!
     
  7. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Yeah, I am a recent convert from Lightroom. After uploading my images into Lightroom, they never looked the same as they did on my LCD screen of the camera. Perhaps I was doing something wrong, but it bugged me. Bugged me enough to switch and I am glad I did! :biggrin:
     
  8. I do too, and that's why NX2 is the first part of my workflow. :)
     
  9. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    *insert thumbs up smiley here*
     
  10. Personally, for me, the NX2 photo is a bit too contrasty. It's blown out some of the white in her sweater compared to the ACR image, which looks a bit more natural. Now, before anybody jumps on me, I do know that Lisa says that she prefers the NX2 version, and doesn't expect everybody to agree. I'm just saying what "I" prefer between the two.
     
  11. Well as already been mentioned the diffrence is that NX can read you in camera settings ACR cant.

    The diffrence depends ALOT on your in camera settings.More to the point just because NX can read the all the data, dosent mean everyone will like it, nor that its the most accurate.

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=151351

    Ill take ACR calibrated (meaning you shoot a GM target, and calibrate ACR to your camera) over NX any day.

    But then again, ill like my images to be flat and accurate to begin with.. .-)

    The diffrence is amplified with the introduction of PC (picture controls), and as also been mentioned Adobe has released profiles to mimic these to some degree. Im not a big fan of neither to be honest. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  12. gswarbrick

    gswarbrick

    32
    Dec 23, 2007
    UK
    That's not strictly true. They could if they used the Nikon SDK (which is free). Adobe chooses not to.
     
  13. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    Okay, I have made 3 posts here and my computer keeps timing out and they keep disappearing, lol.

    What I wanted to say was we are all entitled to our own opinions and I don't take offense :smile: I'm always open to suggestions, thoughts and cc. I find it hard sometimes to cc someone's images b/c after all, an image we view only looks as good or as accurate as the monitor we view it on--- so others don't always see what we see. I'm calibrated w/ the colorplus and all my images come back from the lab a spot on match so I think I'm calibrated properly? Maybe I'm not. Her sweater to me is NOT blown out. In the lighter areas near her shoulder i can still see the details from the pattern of the sweater. As far as the contrast that is the type of pp I prefer and I tend to lean towards the brighter side of things as well.

    ETA: I'm not saying you're not calibrated or your monitor stinks---lol. I was just saying in general.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2008
  14. Hi Lisa, we all have diffrent styles and preferences so dont sweat it, if you like the results that you get from NX, by all means be happy and use it! :)

    As for the blown shirt, easy to check regardless if your sitting on a good calibrated monitor or not. Use the color picker and check the shoulder.

    Sidenote:
    Just because a monitor is calibrated with a device such as spyder or eye1 doesnt mean its accurate. Most cheap panels still is far"from accurate due to the fact the panels isnt "calibrated" in the factory to specifik K value. Apple claimed their was to 6500k, i had 5 panels ranging from 5500-7000k.

    Also if one is using a highend monitor from Eizo or NEC the target you calibrate your monitor may very well be diffrent (since you calibrate to specific target depending on output)


    Kindest
     
  15. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    well when I hear blown out I think of "all detail is lost and unrecoverable in that area". Which isn't the case here. Sure it's hot but it's not gone and I think it's acceptable. The sun was coming from that direction. I could easily fix it in PP.

    Anyway, my point of this thread wasn't to tear apart my image :)
    It was to say I was surprised at the difference between the way my SOOC image looked in NX2 and ACR, period.
     
  16. As i said before, the in camera settings has alot to do with how NX renders the image, so its not always that NX renders the scene brighter or darker, just as i dont think ACR does a better job in all situations on all images. Bottomline is that NX2 is one of the best rawconverter there is for NEF files.

    Use it and be happy Lisa, the image in it self is very cute, and im sure its appreciated regardless wich raw converter you pass it thru. .-)

    Kindest
     
  17. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Like Paul said, use whatever makes you happy and whatever you are comfortable with, especially if it allows you to post the kinds of stunning images you have already.
     
  18. I hope you don't think I'm tearing apart your image??? I'm just pointing out that NX2 didn't deliver anything I noticed to be superior to the ACR shot.

    I'm not sure if you posted to have a discussion about RAW converters since it seems you're not interested in any comments that don't support your initial premise of NX2 "wow".

    Again, don't take this as hostile, just my observation.

    NOTE: Deleted my previous post pointing out the hot areas of the image.
     
  19. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    No Joe-- :)
    You didn't need to delete that post either.
    You posting that made me see something I didn't see so that's good. And that quote above made me realize what you were saying. I just felt like the topic turned away from RAW converters and to blown areas in my image. No worries, really. I need to toughen up. Won't get better w/out listening and taking cc for what it is :)

    I wasn't posting necessarily to discuss RAW converters. I was just asking why the difference in the two b/c I did find the difference to be very noticeable.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2008
  20. I liked the CNX2 conversions so much that I almost abandoned LR 1.4. Frankly the LR conversions looked well, not good.

    But I was not comfortable with its interface and it was slower. When LR2 came out I gave LR another try.

    I found that if I used a sharpening preset and one of the Beta Camera profiles the starting image was very close or almost indistinguishable from the CNX2 version. Now I am back to the LR/CS3 workflow and very pleased with the results.

    That said, if you like working in CNX2 it is the easiest way to go with NEFS. I also process other raw files and CNX2 does not convert these. LR2.1 is a better choice for me.

    The end result of editing in CNX2 and LR 2.1 will be very close. Which is better is a matter of personal preference. The more seamless workflow between LR 2.1 and Photoshop makes it much easier for me.