Nikon Capture NX-D for RAW NEF images

[pksengupta]

I have read in a blog: https://wypictures.wordpress.com/201...-capture-nx-d/
that Capture NX-D is 'best RAW converter for Nikon NEFs'.
The writer goes on to state that he generates TIFF and uses Lightroom for post-processing these TIFF files

I want to learn to shoot RAW using my Nikon D5100 camera and then process the images. I have downloaded Capture NX-D. It is freeware by Nikon.

My questions

1. I do not want to spend money for Lightroom at present. So, what free software should I use to post-process TIFF files generated by Capture NX-D?
2. Should I always generate TIFF in Capture NX-D
3. Should I always use Manual Mode

[Black Pearl]

Why do you think you will need to post process beyond the post processing options available in NX-D?

If you want to output the file as a final image then yes a TIFF is the most common option as it isn't compressed and can be opened in just about any software should you need to.

The worst thing you can do is think 'always' is an option. Use whichever metering/exposure combination you feel both comfortable using and gives you the results you want. Manual should simply be one of those combinations.

[Mike Buckley]

Why do you think you will need to post process beyond the post processing options available in NX-D?

Just in case the OP isn't sure about the answer to that question, I'll provide it: Anyone who wants to adjust certain areas of an image without affecting other areas will not be able to do that using Capture NX-D. That's because the software provides no masking capabilities.

[Mike Buckley]

To the OP:

Once you decide upon the other software, don't be surprised if it does just as good a job at doing the same things that Capture NX-D does regardless of what the author of that blog says. Five or more years ago it might have been valid to say that Nikon generally provided the best raw converter for use with Nikon files. That's because only Nikon has the proprietary information stored in their raw files. However, beginning about 2009 with the release of Lightroom 3 and other competing products, many developers were doing an excellent job of emulating the look provided by Nikon's converters. And that's still the case today.

My point is that if you prefer to avoid the hassle of using two software applications to post-process your images, you may be able to use only one. Relatively few Nikon shooters use Capture NX-D, so it's not as if that product is required to make great photos.

[Shadowman]

You may want some noise reduction software somewhere in your workflow. Most free programs don't have a good NR function. Perhaps adding NIK software could fit your other needs.

[Mike Buckley]

You may want some noise reduction software somewhere in your workflow.

Capture NX-D can make that happen. It should happen at the beginning of the workflow or at least before any sharpening is done, so it makes more sense to me to at least try Capture NX-D's capability if that software is going to be used as the first application in the workflow.

[pksengupta]

I am under the impression from the blog I mentioned, that Capture NX-D cannot provide finishing touches. So one should use some other tool for this purpose. The writer uses Lightroom, which has a price tag. Hence, I was asking for recommendations of freeware to use for final touches to TIFF outputs of Capture NX-D in place of Lightroom.

[george013]

I am under the impression from the blog I mentioned, that Capture NX-D cannot provide finishing touches. So one should use some other tool for this purpose. The writer uses Lightroom, which has a price tag. Hence, I was asking for recommendations of freeware to use for final touches to TIFF outputs of Capture NX-D in place of Lightroom.

Gimp is what you're asking for. https://www.gimp.org/features/

George

[Mikehd70]

Without and editor your best bet is to shoot in Jpeg find what setting give you the best results and live with it,Cant remember how NX works not used it for years all my editing is in LR and really there is no need for PS. If you have shot correctly.

[Mike Buckley]

Welcome to the forum, Mike!

all my editing is in LR and really there is no need for PS. If you have shot correctly.

It's understandable that that might apply to your needs but it won't necessarily apply to everyone's needs.

Moreover, the usefulness of Photoshop or any other program has little or nothing to do with whether the image was captured correctly. Instead, it has to do mostly with the post-processing requirements (which often have a lot to do with the style of photographs being made), whether another program meets all of those requirements due to capabilities it has that Lightroom doesn't have, and the purely subjective decisions regarding the user's affinity for working with one program over another.

[ccphoto]

To the OP:

...many developers were doing an excellent job of emulating the look provided by Nikon's converters...

I realize I am taking part of your quote completely out of context but this is the key phrase and one I use with my LR counterparts...emulates but does not duplicate, nor in their emulation are able to completely utilize all the data in the raw files like Photoshop can, has, and will continue to do. To me, and this is just my opinion, Photoshop is the the racing bike and LR is the wanna be with lots of glitter, chrome, bells and whistles. The ACR editor is the essential essence of LR and its ending point whereas Photoshop is where all the real fun begins.

[Black Pearl]

Without and editor your best bet is to shoot in Jpeg find what setting give you the best results and live with it,Cant remember how NX works not used it for years all my editing is in LR and really there is no need for PS. If you have shot correctly.

Every image manipulation parameter you can set in camera to create a jpeg can be set in NX-D if you shoot NEF. Therefore you would actually be far better off shooting raw and tweaking, altering, creating multiple copies with countless adjustments that having particular settings baked into a jpeg you created in camera.

[Manfred M]

Without and editor your best bet is to shoot in Jpeg find what setting give you the best results and live with it,Cant remember how NX works not used it for years all my editing is in LR and really there is no need for PS. If you have shot correctly.

Welcome to CiC Mike (?). Would you mind clicking the "My Profile" button on the top of this page and adding at least your first name and where you are from to your profile. We are a fairly informal bunch here at CiC and go on a first name basis.

I know a number of commercial photographers who shot jpeg only. In their case, they are primarily wedding and event photographers and that choice is made purely because of the time constraints they are working under. While I can usually get away with jpeg only if I am shooting in a studio and can control the lighting.

For the majority of my I prefer shooting basic jpeg + raw. That gives me the flexibility I need as I have all the data that my camera has recorded to fine tune my images, if required. The jpegs are great for social media, but for more serious work, I prefer the control that working in raw gives me.

As for Photoshop not being necessary, I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you strongly on that. The level of control I like is not available in Lightroom (or it's twin, Adobe Camera Raw). Both are parametric editors, and if the adjustment cannot be described by a couple of data points and an equation, those editing tools cannot be made accurate enough. ACR and Lightroom are fine for global adjustments as well as a level of functions that don't need precise control. Once you need to get to a pixel level of control, a raster image based editor like Photoshop comes into its own.

[Mikehd70]

Grumpydriver I have done my profile- I hope.
I think one has to look at what the end result is going to be used for,if you are being paid to provide a certain look then you must use the tools to produce that look. But most and i would be even safe in saying 99.99999% of all shots taken are posted on some media and viewed on possibly an incorrect colour calibrated monitor.For paid work shooting in Jpeg is bit like insurance you dont really need it but the day you do you wished you had shot in raw.If I may why do you need PS when you let the camera editor do the work for you in the begining what are you saving besides HD/card space by shooting in Jpeg.If like me now I shoot for myself shoot in what you like and post or not edited or not,as long as you are happy with the outcome that is the only thing that should matter,making others happy by doing it there way is silly. and that is why i say you dont need more that LR to do any editing,even that is an over kill if you know how to use it. Here is a challenge I will shoot a raw with the D800 I will edit it the best I can in LR and happly make it aviable in my dropbox to anyone who would like to edit it in whatever they use, we then provide them to a moderator to rename them to say A and B resize and upload and let everone rate the shot and compare to my 5 minute edit I do in LR. OK sometimes I my need 6 minutes.

[Black Pearl]

Grumpydriver I have done my profile- I hope.
I think one has to look at what the end result is going to be used for,if you are being paid to provide a certain look then you must use the tools to produce that look. But most and i would be even safe in saying 99.99999% of all shots taken are posted on some media and viewed on possibly an incorrect colour calibrated monitor.For paid work shooting in Jpeg is bit like insurance you dont really need it but the day you do you wished you had shot in raw.If I may why do you need PS when you let the camera editor do the work for you in the begining what are you saving besides HD/card space by shooting in Jpeg.If like me now I shoot for myself shoot in what you like and post or not edited or not,as long as you are happy with the outcome that is the only thing that should matter,making others happy by doing it there way is silly. and that is why i say you dont need more that LR to do any editing,even that is an over kill if you know how to use it. Here is a challenge I will shoot a raw with the D800 I will edit it the best I can in LR and happly make it aviable in my dropbox to anyone who would like to edit it in whatever they use, we then provide them to a moderator to rename them to say A and B resize and upload and let everone rate the shot and compare to my 5 minute edit I do in LR. OK sometimes I my need 6 minutes.

Could you instead please go out to a local city with your D800 and take a series of shots with your camera locked down on a solid tripod as the light changes from dusk with a good blue sky to dark where the street lights are the illumination so members can blend them together. If that isn't convenient how about an exposure sequence covering the darkest shadow areas and the brightest windows of your local church interior so the resulting files can be combined into a single shot. Or you could pop to a local landmark building with a fantastic interior and shoot the same sort of sequence but please make sure there is a mixture of light sources so that daylight, tungsten and possibly LED white balances can to be mixed together. Another option might be to take a focus stack sequence with a macro lens to enable a greater depth of field to be captured once the resulting files have been combined.

Once you have any of those raw file sequences please show us the results and explain how you layered, combined and blended them in LR.

Thanks.

[Manfred M]

Mike - if Lightroom is good enough for the work you do, then who are we to argue. It is not good enough for a much of the work I do, so who are you to tell me that I should be able to pull things off in Lightroom?

I use adjustment layers, Smart Objects, blending modes, layer masks and clipping masks in almost all of my "serious work". I use the healing brush, clone stamp, patch tool and the various content aware functions all the time. Lightroom does not have the tools I consider essential for the type of editing that I do.

Could I do about 80% of the work in Lightroom? Yes, probably, but it is the other 20% that I could not. Of course that 20% of the work takes 80% of the effort. I could probably get 80% of the shots that get posted to the internet on my camera phone, but what about the other 20% that require the other cameras I use?

Like Robin - I could send you a number of shots that I could not have done purely in Lightroom.