Lightroom and Nikon D3300

[Mintybaby]

Hi,

I am new to photography and have just bought myself a Nikon D3300, and have been delighted with my early results. But I have now decided to shoot RAW/NEF and try and be a little bit more ambitious in my photography.

I have been playing around with Lightroom and the programme does seem to offer a lot. BUT I keen reading that Lightroom and Nikon are not natural buddies. This is very disappointing to me as I am keen to go that route.

Can I ask if this really is the case? And if it IS, what alternatives might be available for my particular brand/camera.

Any advice at all would be most gratefull received

M
x

[Mike Buckley]

I disagree that Nikon and Lightroom or any effective raw converter are not natural buddies, though I suppose that might depend on your definition of "natural" in that context.

You have two basic choices regarding which converter to use -- Nikon's converter (whose name escapes me at the moment) or a non-Nikon converter. The argument for using Nikon's converter is that all of the proprietary information built into the raw file is read by Nikon's converter whereas the non-Nikon converters only emulate that information. That was a sound argument in my mind until Lightroom 4 and its later versions were released; those later generations and the current generation do a wonderful job of converting Nikon files.

The reason not to use Nikon's currently supported converter is that it has strong limitations making certain basic kinds of adjustments to the converted image. If you feel so strongly that you want to use Nikon's converter, you could do that, save the converted image as a TIFF, and hand it off to Lightroom or any other product to make the adjustments that can't be made using Nikon's converter.

For the record, my primary editing software is Nikon's converter that was discontinued a couple years ago and was released at least five years ago, probably longer. That's because that converter has far more capabilities than the current converter (for reasons that would require a long story not worth explaining) and because I got so used to using those capabilities. I hand off my images to Lightroom or Photoshop on very rare occasions to do certain things that aren't possible to do using my primary software.

So, use whatever software seems to be the best fit for you and be open-minded to the fact that lots and lots of pro Nikon shooters use Lightroom to convert and further adjust their raw files.

[Mintybaby]

Hi Mike,

Thank you so much for this most reassuring reply, very much appreciated!

As a complete newcomer to 'post-production' it gives me a good starting point that I can have some confidence in. I just didn't want to 'fiddle' away and whilst seeing results, be unaware that I was 'hobbled' from the start.

I shall proceed with confidence!!! I think I will concentrate on Lightroom.....before even thinking about the curve of Photoshop

I hope to post something for feedback in the relevant place as soon as

Again thank yu

M
x

[Mike Buckley]

Best of luck with your foray into post-processing your images, Ginny. One huge advantage of using Lightroom is that there are so many very effective video tutorials explaining how to use it.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Ginny. Mike summed it up pretty well. Only Nikon software will read and display the camera settings for color, contrast, etc. Opening your NEF files in Lightroom(LR) is essentially as if you shot them with all settings set to what Nikon calls "neutral". Like most Japanese companies, Nikon is very secretive about their products and won't share the code required to fully read the NEF files. So if you want to see the photos with the in-camera processing as you had it set then you have to use their software or shoot jpeg. Unfortunately Nikon isn't a software company and their software products aren't very good IMO. If you do want to use Nikon software for viewing, basic editing, and converting files from NEF to either jpeg or TIFF, you can go to the Nikon website in the support page and download either ViewNX2 or Nikon NX-D.

I used their products for years to export TIFF files as Mike described then processed the TIFFs in Photoshop Elements. A couple of years ago I switched to LR. It was a difficult transition and a lot to learn. But ultimately it is a much better program and more importantly there are a lot of third party software companies who make "plug-ins" for LR with some very advanced editing features.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of professional photographers us LR, typically in conjunction with either Photoshop or some of the third party software that I mentioned. The reason that I switched is due to the high volume of photos that I shoot and LR has good tools for handling that volume. If you don't shoot much and only need basic editing tools then you can likely get along fine using one of the Nikon products and they are free. If you plan on getting pretty serious with your photography then I'd recommend that you bite the bullet and learn to use LR supplemented with either OnOne Photosuite or Topaz Labs plug-in suite(I don't recall the name). If you watch their websites or sign up for their "news" feeds they frequently have half price sales.

Hope to see you hanging around CIC and posting some photos. This is a good place to learn. Just ignore the raging debates that crop up from time to time on technical issues

[NorthernFocus]

Doh... you already decided while I was typing...

[Mike Buckley]

If you do want to use Nikon software for viewing, basic editing, and converting files from NEF to either jpeg or TIFF, you can go to the Nikon website in the support page and download either ViewNX2 or Nikon NX-D.

Be aware of the following limitation regarding View NX-2 and D3300 files explained at the Nikon website: "When images captured with the D4S, D810, D3300, or D5300 are displayed at a magnification of less than 25%, brightness in the RAW image preview display and images output in TIFF format may differ."

[Shadowman]

Regarding Lightroom, newly released cameras are sometimes not fully supported by LR and this probably holds true for any brand and many software packages, however, there are usually workarounds when converting RAW captures.

[NorthernFocus]

Regarding Lightroom, newly released cameras are sometimes not fully supported by LR...

For a while, typically a few weeks until they provide an update to accommodate them.

[Mintybaby]

Hi Dan,
…and thank you for your response/explanation, it is really very much appreciated.

Can I just please check that I have this right (…I am trying to work out my ‘routine/formula for post-production).

I would, on balance probably be better of by-passing the Nikon software altogether and importing direct into Lightroom? Then do my ‘developing’/editing and then onto Photoshop/alternative for the final polishing.

Then export as PSD/TIFF which will preserve all the original information, as well as archiving the original NEL.
Sorry about the delayed response but weekends are always my busy time. 

Thank you all again 

Ginny
x

[NorthernFocus]

...I would, on balance probably be better of by-passing the Nikon software altogether...

If the cost is not an issue for you and you think that photography is in your life to stay as a serious hobby and/or profession then yes. The only way to get Photoshop nowadays is the cloud based version bundled with LR for a monthly subscription fee. Not sure elsewhere but in the US it is $10/month and future pricing subject to the vagaries of Adobe.

LR can still be purchased as a standalone program which can be supplemented with the third party products as previously mentioned. I'm not sure it saves you all that much if you choose to stay current because they all update every couple of years. But one always has the option of continuing to use the old version. I tend to stay one generation behind and only update when they begin to heavily discount prior to the next release.

I've elected to go the LR/OnOne route because OnOne provides layers with 16bit processing as well as excellent cloning tools and other advanced features similar to Photoshop without having to commit to the cloud/subscription model. OnOne defaults to PSD files and you can save as "smart" versions if you want to be able to re-edit and/or keep track of all the edits you did. PSD and particularly the smart version are large files and consume a lot of storage. For example with your 24MP images from the D3300 you can easily end up with PSD files that are 200Mb each. As you are learning it can be advantageous to store the re-editable versions.

We all have personal preferences when it comes to software. Sometimes simply the user interface may be a serious issue for some people. Most software can be downloaded as a 30 day trial version prior to committing to purchase. I'd encourage you to do that.

Sorry for getting so long-winded.

[davidedric]

Hi Ginny,

You have that pretty much right, but I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.

For the great majority of my images (mostly wildlife and travel) I can do all I need to in Lightroom. I would make your first priority getting to grips with Lightroom. That said there are some things that you can't do at all in Lightroom, anything involving merging images for example, and some things that Photoshop can do a lot better, such as cloning out unwanted objects.

However, one key thing to know is that Lightroom is a "parametric" editor, which means it never
changes your original image: it accumulates the changes you specify and stores them with your image (whether it's RAW, jpeg, or whatever). So you never need to archive anything, and you never discard your original RAW's.

There are books written about various workflows, but the last point is key to using Lightroom effectively.

Dave

[NorthernFocus]

...That said there are some things that you can't do at all in Lightroom, anything involving merging images for example, and some things that Photoshop can do a lot better, such as cloning out unwanted objects....

Dave you should clarify what you mean my "merging images". The current version of LR will merge multiple files to produce panoramic and HDR images. And yes it does have a cloning tool but it is very basic.

[Mike Buckley]

I would make your first priority getting to grips with Lightroom.

Dave's point leads to a question that he may not be able to answer if he is not sufficiently familiar with Photoshop and ACR (Photoshop's raw converter), so I ask everyone: Once a user who has used neither Lightroom nor Photoshop has decided to subscribe to the Photoshop CC/Lightroom CC package, is it advisable to begin by learning how to use Lightroom, which is a raw converter, or is it advisable to begin by learning how to use ACR?

[Mike Buckley]

The current version of LR will merge multiple files to produce panoramic and HDR images.

I don't remember whether those capabilities are included in the version with the one-time perpetual license (often called the stand-alone version) but I am certain that the Boundary Warp capability that can be used when merging files is available only with the subscription license.

[NorthernFocus]

I don't remember whether those capabilities are included in the version with the one-time perpetual license (often called the stand-alone version)...

Yes, that's what I use. The "de-haze" tool isn't provided in the stand alone version either. But some clever individual figured out that it is simply locked/hidden and wrote a plug-in to unlock it

[davidedric]

Dave you should clarify what you mean my "merging images". The current version of LR will merge multiple files to produce panoramic and HDR images. And yes it does have a cloning tool but it is very basic.

True enough, but I wouldn't want to build a montage! The clone is really a development of the spot removal tool, but it does work OK in some circumstances, and it's better than it used to be.

[davidedric]

Dave's point leads to a question that he may not be able to answer if he is not sufficiently familiar with Photoshop and ACR (Photoshop's raw converter), so I ask everyone: Once a user who has used neither Lightroom nor Photoshop has decided to subscribe to the Photoshop CC/Lightroom CC package, is it advisable to begin by learning how to use Lightroom, which is a raw converter, or is it advisable to begin by learning how to use ACR?

I don't suppose there is a definitive answer. My take would be that Lightroom is a Digital Asset Management and workflow tool which includes ACR capability with a different interface, consistent with the rest of the application. If you want to make use of that (and I certainly do!) and are prepared to adopt Lightroom's way of working, then I think it makes sense to start with Lightroom. Otherwise, might as well use Bridge / ACR / Photoshop.

I have a suspicion that if you go the ACR/Photoshop route, you probably won't explore all the capabilities of ACR before jumping to Photoshop, but it's only supposition.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

That's very helpful, Dave, especially if others confirm agreement with your thinking. I have no need for Lightroom's cataloging capabilities because I already use a different cataloging software application that by reputation is more powerful. So, if I ever decide to stop using my current raw converter and considering that I have the CC subscription, my best bet would probably be to use ACR and Photoshop.

[NorthernFocus]

My take is that you pretty much HAVE TO learn the LR method of cataloging in order to use it. That's simply because you MUST create a catalog to use LR at all. So if one had no need for/intention to use the cataloging feature and already had PS, it would make much better sense to simply us ACR as RAW converter and do the rest in PS.