Nikon View NX vs LR3

[makolit]

Hi!
First off, if this is not the correct forum for this, please help to move it.

I have recently just started using LR3 (and my nose is bleeding from the steep learning curve). With that, I have used View NX to convert and edit (as far as editing goes with VNX) my RAW pictures. I had actually gotten used to it and already have my workflow. But I've been reading a lot about how LR3 is one of the best tools for workflow management.

So I got LR3.

I don't know if it's just me, but I feel that VNX is better at handling my RAW than LR3. Is it because it's made by Nikon? Or is it just me? ;p

Is the PP/editing features of LR3 working in a similar way as VNX? (i.e. produces the same WB when adjusted, produces the same EV compensation when adjusted, etc.)

Should I continue to teach myself LR3? I'm confused actually.

Cheers!

 

[ExplorerZ]

are you talking about image output from vnx looks nicer?

imho, from all the raw converter i tried, i find nikon vnx/capturenx2 produce the best color at the minimal settings. somehow i hate to use adobe lr/cs for raw after comparing both side by side.

 

[makolit]

are you talking about image output from vnx looks nicer?

imho, from all the raw converter i tried, i find nikon vnx/capturenx2 produce the best color at the minimal settings. somehow i hate to use adobe lr/cs for raw after comparing both side by side.

YES!
that's exactly how i feel.
if i can see a big difference on-screen, then what more on print, right?
(although i don't plan on printing anything bigger than 4R for now)

 

[Michael]

Nikon VNX can read the data embedded into the NEF file by the camera. One of the things that are in there is info on saturation and contrast. Nikon applies in-camera a saturation boost and increase in contrast (s curve).
LR3 and all other third party raw converter cannot read this data and start with a "neutral" interpretation of the raw data. That is why when you open a raw file in LR you first a vivid picture and then a duller one. The first one is the embedded jpeg preview with the nikon adjustments and the second one is the LR raw interpretation.

 

[ExplorerZ]

Nikon VNX can read the data embedded into the NEF file by the camera. One of the things that are in there is info on saturation and contrast. Nikon applies in-camera a saturation boost and increase in contrast (s curve).
LR3 and all other third party raw converter cannot read this data and start with a "neutral" interpretation of the raw data. That is why when you open a raw file in LR you first a vivid picture and then a duller one. The first one is the embedded jpeg preview with the nikon adjustments and the second one is the LR raw interpretation.

I believe its actually more than that. Most probably due to how the software interpret each of the pixel data and then convert it into color. The nikon definite have one of the best color profile compared to Adobe and capture one even with their saturation and contrast boosted up

 

[Michael]

I believe its actually more than that. Most probably due to how the software interpret each of the pixel data and then convert it into color. The nikon definite have one of the best color profile compared to Adobe and capture one even with their saturation and contrast boosted up

yes, Adobe has a different interpretation the per pixel data. What they are doing is reverse engineering. Basically they take calibration shots of colour targets (of the sort like this http://www.pantone.com/pages/products/product.aspx?pid=13&ca=2) under different light conditions and then try to match the RAW data to the patches on the chart. The outcome is a very neutral sometimes dull rendition of the RAW data but probably quite true to the colours shot. Now i am not so sure how true the rendition of the Nikon algorithms would be... one would need to do a test on this... i guess i could take a jpeg shot of of a colour sample, a RAW shot, put the RAW through LR3, the jpeg already carries the Nikon interpretation and then scan the colour with colormunki and compare...

 

[ExplorerZ]

yes, Adobe has a different interpretation the per pixel data. What they are doing is reverse engineering. Basically they take calibration shots of colour targets (of the sort like this http://www.pantone.com/pages/products/product.aspx?pid=13&ca=2) under different light conditions and then try to match the RAW data to the patches on the chart. The outcome is a very neutral sometimes dull rendition of the RAW data but probably quite true to the colours shot. Now i am not so sure how true the rendition of the Nikon algorithms would be... one would need to do a test on this... i guess i could take a jpeg shot of of a colour sample, a RAW shot, put the RAW through LR3, the jpeg already carries the Nikon interpretation and then scan the colour with colormunki and compare...

doesn't really matter how true the color is, as long as it looks great, it did what it suppose to do.

 

[brapodam]

I have never used View NX before, but you can use the Camera Calibration panel in LR to apply "Picture Styles" to your photos to start off your editing. They work as your camera's JPEG conversion engine does (if your camera is supported in the first place), except it does not compress the file into JPEG. I assume that if you use that, you can achieve results equal to, or exceeding, the results you get from ViewNX.

 

[Akira Fudou]

I have been using NX for converting and post process my photos and i released that the sharpening tools only work when you view the photo in NX, once you convert it to jpg, the sharpness is gone. anyone know how to fix this?

 

[makolit]

at the end of the day, it does come down to the final product. the thing is, now that i have LR3, i was thinking of retiring VNX to minimize the software i am using. the cataloging feature of LR3 alone is already proving itself useful for a first time LR user. if i get some free time, i will try to get into more detailed comparison using both software on a single NEF file.

@ akira, when you export to JPG, where do you set the compression ratio? even at maximum compression, there will still be some loss as is the nature of JPG.

cheers!