"Healing Brush" and Capture NX

In Photoshop, I often use the "Healing Brush Tool" to
make small alterations. It is excellent at "copying"
the neighboring texture into an area, with a near
seamless border. Is there anything like it in
Capture NX?

Mike.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
In Photoshop, I often use the "Healing Brush Tool" to
make small alterations. It is excellent at "copying"
the neighboring texture into an area, with a near
seamless border. Is there anything like it in
Capture NX?

No. You can paint a colour into an area (using colour picker to select
colour). Very useful for things like quickly erasing a dust spot in a
sky, but not usable like a proper "clone" tool for ie cloning out a
pimple or snotty nose.

NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have the
functionality of CS3.
On the other hand the CS3 converter is a mess of poorly documented controls
that perform identical functions as other PS controls but in a different way
and the frigging thing lacks a coherent curves tool.
I wish Adobe would ditch their converter altogether and intergrate
everything in the PS desktop.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:33:45 -0700, pickled wrote:

NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have the
functionality of CS3.
On the other hand the CS3 converter is a mess of poorly documented
controls that perform identical functions as other PS controls but in a
different way and the frigging thing lacks a coherent curves tool. I
wish Adobe would ditch their converter altogether and intergrate
everything in the PS desktop.

Then would you think the work flow to jpg should be:

Read nef with NX.
Color-correct with NX.
CROP with NX.
Save nef for storage.
IF a spot must be patched THEN
Export tiff from NX.
Read TIFF to CS3.
Patch.
Export tiff for storage.
Export jpg from CS3 for final use.
ELSE
Export jpg from NX for final use.
ENDIF

What do you think of this?

I have assumed that the resizing algorithms and CS3 are
both good. Is this so? I have not seen any way select
method of interpolation in NX.

Thanks for your advice.
Mike.

pickled wrote:
NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have the
functionality of CS3.

Often not known by casual users who have only trialled NX, is that some
relatively complex operations (selective sharpening / NR / gradient
blends / brushing to add or remove selections) are not just possible
with NX, but work much more intuitively, and remain fully
"undoable/redoable" and editable when changes are saved (saved to nef
metadata - not a sidecar file). No more ****ing around with layers and
layer masks, saving psd files etc. That has got to be good.

If Nikon added a clone tool, and improved the printing capability (ie so
that you could print a different size without having to output a new
file with different pixel dimension first), then I'd put PS to sleep -
perhaps not euthanise it forever, but let it sleep most of the time.

On 2008-04-10 18:30:38 -0700, frederick said:

pickled wrote:
NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have
the functionality of CS3.

Often not known by casual users who have only trialled NX, is that some
relatively complex operations (selective sharpening / NR / gradient
blends / brushing to add or remove selections) are not just possible
with NX, but work much more intuitively, and remain fully
"undoable/redoable" and editable when changes are saved (saved to nef
metadata - not a sidecar file). No more ****ing around with layers and
layer masks, saving psd files etc. That has got to be good.

If Nikon added a clone tool, and improved the printing capability (ie
so that you could print a different size without having to output a new
file with different pixel dimension first), then I'd put PS to sleep -
perhaps not euthanise it forever, but let it sleep most of the time.

I somewhat understand the desire to have one program that would
integrate conversion and image editing. While we're at it, why not wish
for a chip that we can have inserted into our brains so we can just
think it and make it so, saving both time and electrical bills?

The Photoshop aversion is something else again - I just don't get all
the negativity. It's the premier image editing program available, and
has been for well over a decade. Why not just learn to use your RAW
convertor thoroughly, do the same with PS, and use each where
appropriate?

I'm learning to get the most from Raw Photo Processor, I put in the
hours it took to master Photoshop, and I don't find it a big deal to
have the two-part workflow. If I were a pro who had to produce many
hundreds of prints a week, I guess I might feel differently, but for
ten or twelve pictures in a session, we're taking about a couple of
hours, tops.
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

Tully Albrecht wrote:
On 2008-04-10 18:30:38 -0700, frederick said:

pickled wrote:
NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have
the functionality of CS3.

Often not known by casual users who have only trialled NX, is that
some relatively complex operations (selective sharpening / NR /
gradient blends / brushing to add or remove selections) are not just
possible with NX, but work much more intuitively, and remain fully
"undoable/redoable" and editable when changes are saved (saved to nef
metadata - not a sidecar file). No more ****ing around with layers
and layer masks, saving psd files etc. That has got to be good.

If Nikon added a clone tool, and improved the printing capability (ie
so that you could print a different size without having to output a
new file with different pixel dimension first), then I'd put PS to
sleep - perhaps not euthanise it forever, but let it sleep most of the
time.

I somewhat understand the desire to have one program that would
integrate conversion and image editing. While we're at it, why not wish
for a chip that we can have inserted into our brains so we can just
think it and make it so, saving both time and electrical bills?

The Photoshop aversion is something else again - I just don't get all
the negativity. It's the premier image editing program available, and
has been for well over a decade. Why not just learn to use your RAW
convertor thoroughly, do the same with PS, and use each where appropriate?

It's not an "aversion". There's good reasons to want to only use one
program. Not the least is that from a Nikon user's POV, Nikon raw
converter just does a better job in many real practical ways, and from
sheer image quality POV not leaving you with a starting point of a sows
ear to try and turn back into a silk purse.
And aside from that, Capture NX (and some other programs) were designed
from ground-up to deal with raw photography workflow, not a cobbled
collection of different ideas thrown together in order to get something
to work.

I'm learning to get the most from Raw Photo Processor, I put in the
hours it took to master Photoshop, and I don't find it a big deal to
have the two-part workflow. If I were a pro who had to produce many
hundreds of prints a week, I guess I might feel differently, but for ten
or twelve pictures in a session, we're taking about a couple of hours,
tops.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

frederick wrote:
| pickled wrote:
| NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have
| the functionality of CS3.
|
| Often not known by casual users who have only trialled NX, is that some
| relatively complex operations (selective sharpening / NR / gradient
| blends / brushing to add or remove selections) are not just possible
| with NX, but work much more intuitively, and remain fully
| "undoable/redoable" and editable when changes are saved (saved to nef
| metadata - not a sidecar file). No more ****ing around with layers and
| layer masks, saving psd files etc. That has got to be good.
|
| If Nikon added a clone tool, and improved the printing capability (ie so
| that you could print a different size without having to output a new
| file with different pixel dimension first), then I'd put PS to sleep -
| perhaps not euthanise it forever, but let it sleep most of the time.

You might find (as I have) that a combination of applications is needed
to gain the best functionality from each one. Photoshop is indispensable
for me when enlarging images but only when I use A "plugin" for the
interpolation. I use Photoshop for "at time of printing" adjustments too.

DxO Optix Pro is likewise, an indispensable application to correct image
errors in the sensors and lenses I use. No other program I have come
across will make the output from a "kit" lens look as good as from a Pro
quality lens.

I still need Photoshop Lightroom for it's pure bulk processing ability.
It allows me to create my own individual "look" to my work and apply it
to anything up to 1000 images as it develops them, without supervision,
overnight.

I am far from satisfied *ANY* Nikon software is any good or has any
reliability to it. My experience has been thaqt all camea maker suplied
software is single image at a time stuff that might handle a dozen or so
images in one hit but that's it.

Some observation only. As always with my observations, there will be
those who disagree with me and those it offers some insight to. I can
only hope a few might find them useful.

- --

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFH/sg7huxzk5D6V14RAvW+AJ9jQ2F9cEc+lEdszPhiK0S9PHK8ggC fZDM5
aVDk88glKcHuWnna4a7wIB0=
=+Du1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alienjones wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

frederick wrote:
| pickled wrote:
| NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have
| the functionality of CS3.
|
| Often not known by casual users who have only trialled NX, is that some
| relatively complex operations (selective sharpening / NR / gradient
| blends / brushing to add or remove selections) are not just possible
| with NX, but work much more intuitively, and remain fully
| "undoable/redoable" and editable when changes are saved (saved to nef
| metadata - not a sidecar file). No more ****ing around with layers and
| layer masks, saving psd files etc. That has got to be good.
|
| If Nikon added a clone tool, and improved the printing capability (ie so
| that you could print a different size without having to output a new
| file with different pixel dimension first), then I'd put PS to sleep -
| perhaps not euthanise it forever, but let it sleep most of the time.

You might find (as I have) that a combination of applications is needed
to gain the best functionality from each one. Photoshop is indispensable
for me when enlarging images but only when I use A "plugin" for the
interpolation. I use Photoshop for "at time of printing" adjustments too.

Pretty ****-poor that CS3 only has bicubic huh? Some freeware does
better "upscaling" (and other interpolation in processing) than
something which costs... how much?
DxO Optix Pro is likewise, an indispensable application to correct image
errors in the sensors and lenses I use. No other program I have come
across will make the output from a "kit" lens look as good as from a Pro
quality lens.\

I'll wager you that a combination of NX (Auto CA correction) and PTLens
does a better job than DxO - and with far less user input. I'm saying
that without even trying DxO myself, and I could be wrong, but I fancy
my chances there quite highly.
Condition is that the starting point is Nikon nefs from D300 or D3 and
using a lens with FOV equivalent to 24mm (35mm) or wider.

I still need Photoshop Lightroom for it's pure bulk processing ability.
It allows me to create my own individual "look" to my work and apply it
to anything up to 1000 images as it develops them, without supervision,
overnight.

I am far from satisfied *ANY* Nikon software is any good or has any
reliability to it. My experience has been thaqt all camea maker suplied
software is single image at a time stuff that might handle a dozen or so
images in one hit but that's it.

Some observation only. As always with my observations, there will be
those who disagree with me and those it offers some insight to. I can
only hope a few might find them useful.

- --

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFH/sg7huxzk5D6V14RAvW+AJ9jQ2F9cEc+lEdszPhiK0S9PHK8ggC fZDM5
aVDk88glKcHuWnna4a7wIB0=
=+Du1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:08:59 +1000, Alienjones
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

frederick wrote:
| pickled wrote:
| NX is a great alternative to the CS3 raw converter but does not have
| the functionality of CS3.
|
| Often not known by casual users who have only trialled NX, is that some
| relatively complex operations (selective sharpening / NR / gradient
| blends / brushing to add or remove selections) are not just possible
| with NX, but work much more intuitively, and remain fully
| "undoable/redoable" and editable when changes are saved (saved to nef
| metadata - not a sidecar file). No more ****ing around with layers and
| layer masks, saving psd files etc. That has got to be good.
|
| If Nikon added a clone tool, and improved the printing capability (ie so
| that you could print a different size without having to output a new
| file with different pixel dimension first), then I'd put PS to sleep -
| perhaps not euthanise it forever, but let it sleep most of the time.

You might find (as I have) that a combination of applications is needed
to gain the best functionality from each one. Photoshop is indispensable
for me when enlarging images but only when I use A "plugin" for the
interpolation. I use Photoshop for "at time of printing" adjustments too.

DxO Optix Pro is likewise, an indispensable application to correct image
errors in the sensors and lenses I use. No other program I have come
across will make the output from a "kit" lens look as good as from a Pro
quality lens.

I still need Photoshop Lightroom for it's pure bulk processing ability.
It allows me to create my own individual "look" to my work and apply it
to anything up to 1000 images as it develops them, without supervision,
overnight.

I am far from satisfied *ANY* Nikon software is any good or has any
reliability to it. My experience has been thaqt all camea maker suplied
software is single image at a time stuff that might handle a dozen or so
images in one hit but that's it.

Some observation only. As always with my observations, there will be
those who disagree with me and those it offers some insight to. I can
only hope a few might find them useful.

....I use a RAW to DXO to Lightroom flow also...PS is a "special"
after-process for some images. I'm just starting to settle into a
workflow pattern that's comfortable...things will change, I'm sure.

cg