Trying to compare Nikon Capture NX with Adobe CR

Snapper

Shooting raw/NEF with a Nikon D80 and idly trying to compare the raw processing quality of Capture NX and Adobe Camera Raw. What I want to do is find the settings in ACR that are closest to NX.

When I import a NEF into NX, NX applies any in-camera shooting parameters: tone compensation, sharpening, saturation etc. I then go through and change all of these settings to "normal" or "off" to produce the most "un-processed" file I can. White balance was on "Auto" so I've left it at that setting.

I then import the image into PhotoShop as a TIFF.

I also process the NEF using ACR. Although there are "camera default" settings, these do not produce an image that looks the same as my Capture NX TIFF. (Generally the default settings produce a much less contrasty image than NX, even though the NX image was set to "Low Contrast".)

No problem, I think - I'll just reset all these defaults to 0 (while leaving WB "As Shot"), and I'll end up with the same general look to the image. However this plainly doesn't work as ACR's "Brightness" set to "0" is very dark, and "Contrast" set to "0" is very washed-out.

Also the NX TIFF appears noticeably sharper than the ACR image, even though sharpening is set to "Off" or "0" in both programs.

Is there a way to mirror the NX image settings in ACR, or is it just a matter of fiddling with the ACR controls until it looks more-or-less the same? Doesn't seem very scientific, and I wonder how they do comparisons in those "Raw Converter Shoot-out" articles if it is so hard to find an equal starting point.

jfriend

Snapper wrote:

Shooting raw/NEF with a Nikon D80 and idly trying to compare the raw processing quality of Capture NX and Adobe Camera Raw. What I want to do is find the settings in ACR that are closest to NX.

When I import a NEF into NX, NX applies any in-camera shooting parameters: tone compensation, sharpening, saturation etc. I then go through and change all of these settings to "normal" or "off" to produce the most "un-processed" file I can. White balance was on "Auto" so I've left it at that setting.

I then import the image into PhotoShop as a TIFF.

I also process the NEF using ACR. Although there are "camera default" settings, these do not produce an image that looks the same as my Capture NX TIFF. (Generally the default settings produce a much less contrasty image than NX, even though the NX image was set to "Low Contrast".)

No problem, I think - I'll just reset all these defaults to 0 (while leaving WB "As Shot"), and I'll end up with the same general look to the image. However this plainly doesn't work as ACR's "Brightness" set to "0" is very dark, and "Contrast" set to "0" is very washed-out.

Also the NX TIFF appears noticeably sharper than the ACR image, even though sharpening is set to "Off" or "0" in both programs.

Is there a way to mirror the NX image settings in ACR, or is it just a matter of fiddling with the ACR controls until it looks more-or-less the same? Doesn't seem very scientific, and I wonder how they do comparisons in those "Raw Converter Shoot-out" articles if it is so hard to find an equal starting point.

NX and ACR do not work the same way for default settings and, because of this, I consider it a fruitless exercise to try to make one mimic the other. It also isn't what really matters in the real world.

Both are very, very capable RAW processors and are capable of making stunning images with all their various knobs and controls. There is no such thing as one is better than the other. I just ignore all the threads over in dpreview that engage in this worthless debate. Instead, what you have to figure out is which meets your needs better.

The first thing you have to do is to figure out what your needs are. On one end of the spectrum is a fine art photographer who needs to produce one or two stunning and expensive images per session. On the other end of the spectrum is the "event" photographer who needs to produce lots of pretty good images as fast as possible.

For the fine art photographer, what will matter most is can you figure out the interface and controls of the RAW processor such that you can produce the best looking image that leaves the RAW processor and goes into Photoshop for further tweaking. This will have as much to do with the user interface and how it matches how you think and learn as anything else. IMO, this has less to do with which RAW processor is "better" than the other or produces images of higher quality and more to do with which RAW processor can you figure out how to use better.

For the event photographer, what will matter most is can you figure out how to efficiently get good results quickly when processing lots of photos. This is as much a quality per minute invested as anything else. Here, things like efficiency of workflow when processing hundreds of images can matter more than anything else. You ask yourself questions like: "How much time will it take me to generate a pretty good result on 400 images with each program?". If it's hard or time consuming to get the pretty good result, the program will fail to meet your needs and if it's hard to get that result on 400 images, the program will also fail.

And, there are many who are somewhere in between these two ends and need to consider aspects of both.

Snapper

jfriend wrote:

NX and ACR do not work the same way for default settings and, because of this, I consider it a fruitless exercise to try to make one mimic the other. It also isn't what really matters in the real world.

Both are very, very capable RAW processors and are capable of making stunning images with all their various knobs and controls. There is no such thing as one is better than the other. I just ignore all the threads over in dpreview that engage in this worthless debate. Instead, what you have to figure out is which meets your needs better.

The first thing you have to do is to figure out what your needs are. On one end of the spectrum is a fine art photographer who needs to produce one or two stunning and expensive images per session. On the other end of the spectrum is the "event" photographer who needs to produce lots of pretty good images as fast as possible.

I take your point, John, and agree whole-heartedly. As I said I was "idly" comparing the two, for interest's sake rather than any grand scientific reason!

I had just always thought that the basic, unadulterated RAW file was an unchanging "negative" that could then be processed in any way one saw fit. However, it seems that the base state of this "negative" is at the whim of the RAW converter, even when - supposedly - no processing has been applied to it. If I were to open the NEF in another converter and remove all processing would I get yet a third interpretation of "no processing"?

(And I'm not talking about hard-to-spot artifacts, or colour noise in shadows etc. I mean basic "this one's waaaay brighter than this one" observations.)


--Ian

jfriend

Snapper wrote:

I take your point, John, and agree whole-heartedly. As I said I was "idly" comparing the two, for interest's sake rather than any grand scientific reason!

I had just always thought that the basic, unadulterated RAW file was an unchanging "negative" that could then be processed in any way one saw fit. However, it seems that the base state of this "negative" is at the whim of the RAW converter, even when - supposedly - no processing has been applied to it. If I were to open the NEF in another converter and remove all processing would I get yet a third interpretation of "no processing"?

(And I'm not talking about hard-to-spot artifacts, or colour noise in shadows etc. I mean basic "this one's waaaay brighter than this one" observations.)


--Ian

Unfortunately, as I understand it, there is no such thing as a true RAW file displayed on a screen with no processing applied. At a minimum, the values in the RAW file have to be mapped/translated to a color and intensity standard before anything can be displayed and the colored sensor pattern has to be converted to RGB values (called demosaicing) and a white balance setting has to be applied. These transformations involve algorithms and color profiles which are subject to the technology and interpretation of the RAW processor, so as such, they vary from one RAW processor to the next and are not standard. These are necessary before anything can be displayed as the true RAW data is not displayable as a decent looking image without these.

Add to this that most end-users (e.g. RAW processor customers) form an initial opinion of a RAW processor by looking at the "default" image that a RAW processor produces. That's one reason why Nikon applies a bunch of default settings to the RAW image and it's why ACR has it's default tone curve and also has the auto-adjustments. In ACR, you can fully customize the default logic (including the color profile), but you do it in ACR, not in the camera. The first version of ACR did not apply much contrast at all to the default presentation of a RAW file and so many customers thought the ACR results were "flat" that they added more default contrast in subsequent versions of ACR (to make it closer to what the camera would produce for a JPEG). In NX, you can change settings in the camera to affect the default behavior. Some think the NX way is better. I myself would rather not worry about a contrast curve at shoot time at all and am happy to make those decisions at post processing time.

Snapper

Fascinating, thanks.


--Ian

colourbox

One way of looking at it is economically. If you are going to get Photoshop anyway, you'll get ACR at no additional cost, but Nikon Capture NX is extra cost. If you don't need Photoshop, then ACR costs more because you can't get it without Photoshop or Lightroom which are both much more expensive than Capture.

It's true that the only type of uncorrected RAW is basically a grayscale image straight from the sensor that has not been demosaiced into RGB. Any visible image on the screen has had some kind of RGB interpretation applied.

The film negative analogy holds up, but not the way you think. A raw file is not like a developed negative, it's more like an undeveloped negative. The chemistry, temperature, and timing you choose when you develop negative film affects contrast, color, grain, and sharpness. You can't begin to view negative film without first making choices that affect how it's going to look, through the way you (or the lab you hired) chose to develop it. Certain types of bad choices made at development time can't be reversed at later stages. Same thing with raw files.

Rhuarc

colourbox wrote:

Certain types of bad choices made at development time can't be reversed at later stages. Same thing with raw files.

But in the casae of RAW files these changes can be made. So if I load the RAW file into ACR and I make a lot of changes, and then want to change it differently in Capture I can. All I do is load it into Capture and it will use the unaltered RAW data again.

Is this correct, or am I thinking incorrectly? To use the negative analogy, each time you load the RAW file into a different processor it will start with the undeveloped "negative".

jfriend

Rhuarc wrote:

But in the casae of RAW files these changes can be made. So if I load the RAW file into ACR and I make a lot of changes, and then want to change it differently in Capture I can. All I do is load it into Capture and it will use the unaltered RAW data again.

Is this correct, or am I thinking incorrectly? To use the negative analogy, each time you load the RAW file into a different processor it will start with the undeveloped "negative".

I'd agree. Saving RAW files is more like saving your original film that has not yet been developed into negatives and somehow won't magically deteriorate with time. Other than the shoot time settings of composition, focus, exposure, etc... (for the most part) no other processing decisions have yet been made in a RAW file and you can take the same RAW file and process it now in one RAW processor, process it differently in another RAW processor or process it again in 20 years in a new, yet-to-be-designed, RAW processor all starting from the same, original RAW data.

colourbox

Rhuarc wrote:

But in the casae of RAW files these changes can be made. So if I load the RAW file into ACR and I make a lot of changes, and then want to change it differently in Capture I can. All I do is load it into Capture and it will use the unaltered RAW data again. Is this correct, or am I thinking incorrectly? To use the negative analogy, each time you load the RAW file into a different processor it will start with the undeveloped "negative".

You are thinking correctly. I was writing imprecisely.

What I meant was that once you exit the raw conversion stage and are working with a TIFF or JPEG, there are certain aspects of the image you can no longer change (unless you go back to the raw file), drawing an analogy where once you develop the neg you can't go back to the undeveloped neg. Your post brings up a good point that at least with digital raw, as long as you have the raw file you can always re-develop it in different ways from the very beginning, which is not possible with the irreversible chemical process of developing a film negative.