Nikon Capture NX2 vs LR2. The same or different?

Daddy0 · February 3, 2010

Are there any limitations in using Nikon's Capture NX2 vs using Light Room 2? I have a Nikon D90 and assume(we all know what that means) that NX2 would be a better choice, but I would like to know from someone who is a lot more experienced than I am. I know that both NX2 & LR2 can only process a photo just so far, and then you would need to finish it in PS, but can't a tremendous amount of photos be edited as much as needed in NX2 or LR2?

pathfinder · February 3, 2010

The decision whether to use only the OEM dedicated Raw processor ( NX2 for Nikon, Digital Photo Pro for Canon, or the Panasonic dedicated Raw processor for the Lumix cameras, etc ) or a RAW processor designed by a non-OEM firm like Adobe's Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom2, Apple's Aperture, Digital Optics Pro's DXO, Capture One, et al is not a simple answer. There are several things to consider.

Using the OEM software - NX2 - and then moving on to Photoshop or Lightroom involves a couple steps, that is not necessary if you start with ACR or LR2 to begin with.

Some feel that the native OEM Raw processors must have better color balance and image quality that other non-OEM software that does not have access to all the proprietary information about the RAW image file. None the less, a substantial number of fine art photographers highly committed to maximum image quality do use Lightroom2/ACR as their RAW processing engine of choice.

One of the things I like about ACR/Lightroom for Canon cameras is that they allow different camera profiles to be chosen for each image file. I am not certain if this advantage is available to Nikon shooters. It is not available for my Panasonic GF-1.

As a Canon shooter, I use Lightroom2/ACR as my RAW processor. I will be interested to hear the Nikonians discuss how they make their choice in this regard.

Does NX2 allow local adjustment brush type changes like ACR/LR2, or is it strictly a global processor?

Nathan Holritz · February 5, 2010

Hmmm... I'd beg to differ... If you want the most efficient image processing workflow possible, you'll want to avoid the Canon and Nikon software like the plague! Their image processing engines are EXTREMELY SLOW in comparison to software like Aperture and Lightroom, and it wouldn't take more than 5 minutes in each piece of software to see the difference.

Nikon profiles are also available in Lightroom v2 - I personally use the Adobe Standard profile to render my D2X files.

Nathan Holritz · February 5, 2010

Daddy0 wrote:

I know that both NX2 & LR2 can only process a photo just so far, and then you would need to finish it in PS, but can't a tremendous amount of photos be edited as much as needed in NX2 or LR2?

There's really no "need" to finish an image in Photoshop unless you need to do extensive artwork on an image. Shoot it well in the camera, and the majority of your images can be processed beautifully in Lightroom.

Kyle D · February 10, 2010

I beg to differ with Nathan. I have extensively tried both LR and LR2 and used Capture NX and am now using Capture NX2. I find Capture NX2 just as fast if not faster for image editing than LR2 in my experience. I've also found that with Capture NX2 my output is that much better, less noise, better colours, and the wonderful ability to save multiple versions of the same image to a single NEF file (this is a wonderful little feature that will save disc space and clutter).

Also, NX2 is not just a global editor, there is a cloning brush, as well as different masking brushes that you can use very similarly to that of Photoshop and LR and then you can apply selective adjustments to those areas. There aren't any layer options in NX2 though.

I posted this in another thread, but I'll paste the main points I stated as for differences between the two.

As for what I like about NX2 over LR2. I just found that after playing around with LR2 for a month or so and reading Scott Kelby's book on LR2, I couldn't get the same results that I was used to from NX2. Nor could I edit an image to the way I liked anywhere near as quickly as I could in NX2. Also, even with using the colour profiles in LR2, they wouldn't compare to the colours I could get from NX2.

Sure, I understand that since I've been using NX and now NX2 for going on 2.5 years I didn't expect to be able to learn LR2 and be able to use it as effectively as I use NX2. But I did expect a significant difference in my overall workflow speed by the end of the month over when I started using it. It just wasn't the case, an image that I processed in NX2 in about a minute would talk me anywhere from 5-10 minutes in LR2.

Also, I kind of like the automatic chromatic aboration tool in NX2 and how it is always enabled. I was also unable to find acceptable sharpening settings in LR2 for my D50. I found the sharpening to be hit or miss in LR2. Finally, I also prefered the fact that in NX2 you can save multiple versions of the same image to a single NEF file over the virtual copies method in LR2.

I'm not saying that LR2 doesn't have it's uses or good points. I really liked the fact that it'll preview what you're trying to do before you actually click it in the preview window, ie. converting to b&w. I also liked the importing utility and metadata stuff plus the gallery, but what was the deal breaker was the fact that I couldn't get LR2 and NX2 to play nicely with each other when it came to metadata. My initial plan for switching to LR2 was to use it to import, organize, label, cull my images, and then send them over to NX2 to be edited and then when done have the edits show up in LR2. I would have then liked to have been able to have the metadata I tagged the files with in LR2 to show up in NX2 and if I edited that data in NX2 have it show the changes in NX2. I would have also liked to have been able to upload to smugmug straight from LR2 with the images edited in NX2.

So, I hope that helps.

Oh and just so you know, I'm using NX2 on a Core i5 750 with 4gb of DDR3 ram and Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit.

arodney · February 10, 2010

Going past the idea of which converter is ‘better’ at rendering the images, the big differences between the manufacturers converter and a 3rd party boil down to two things:

1. The manufacturers use proprietary metadata for some tasks (like attempting to match a picture style or matching a JPEG and initial raw default rendering). So the 3rd party converter can’t access or understand this. Its questionable if this is useful to users or not.

2. The manufacturers can access, without “hacking” the proprietary raw format from the get-go. Everyone else has to figure out how to access this data. That’s why often, you’ll find it takes a bit of time for a new camera to be supported in 3rd party apps. That’s not at all useful to anyone but the manufacturer. This is one reason why Adobe developed DNG. Its an open format based on TIFF (but the data can be un-demoisiced data).

It would be oh so helpful if the camera manufacturers would focus on hardware instead of thinking they are software companies (something they rarely do well) and provide an open raw format out if their products, even if they want to encrypt some metadata. Proprietary file formats don’t help end users, only the people who produce the proprietary data!

Richard · February 10, 2010

arodney wrote:

It would be oh so helpful if the camera manufacturers would focus on hardware instead of thinking they are software companies (something they rarely do well) and provide an open raw format out if their products, even if they want to encrypt some metadata. Proprietary file formats don’t help end users, only the people who produce the proprietary data!

Amen.

MooreDriven · February 15, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

One of the things I like about ACR/Lightroom for Canon cameras is that they allow different camera profiles to be chosen for each image file. I am not certain if this advantage is available to Nikon shooters. It is not available for my Panasonic GF-1.

This is also true for Nikon. However, the profiles are not identical to those for the proprietary software. They are designed to match as closely as possible, which for most, including myself, really don't see much of a difference.

I have both LR2 and CNX2. I primarily use LR2 because it was the better choice when I purchased my camera versus CNX1. I got used to using it. I do find NX2 to process a cleaner image. So for those images I really want to fine tune, I send to NX2. Otherwise I process most in LR2.

If your just starting out, then I would recommend LR2. LR3 should be released in the next few months which may provide some other advantages not available in NX2. If you've not downloaded the trial versions of both, I highly recommend this before buying either one.

Nikon Capture NX2 vs LR2. The same or different?

Comments