Raw Convertors

There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
applies to Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
applies to Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens

Absolutely my thought too.

I've no idea what Nikon were dreaming about when they designed
the interface but as far as quality imaging goes... Nikon
Capture 2NX is unsurpassed.

Second best is Capture one 4. Amazing noise control and almost
as good at pulling detail and colours as Nikon's own software.

I had a lot of problems with my D700 RAW files. It seems most
RAW converters can't read the Nikon files properly and do a
'dirty' conversion.

I bought DxO Optics Pro some time ago but it had to be
upgraded to Elite version before reading the D700's files. A
Total an utter waste of good money. OK with Canon files but no
way in this world is it worth a cent with Nikon D700 files.

I just wish Nikon Capture 2NX would read s5 Fuji file. These
are still an amazing camera but the Fuji supplied RAW
converter is junk...

Interestingly...I bought Paint Shop Pro in a duty free shop as
I exited the US last month ($40) I think from memory. Just for
something to read on the plane. It opens Fuji files pretty
nicely but there is no RAW adjustment beforehand. It's not
that good on D900 stuff, blowing the highlights where the
Nikon software preserves it.

A couple of examples he
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au...VNikon-NX2.htm

If you're interested..

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:44:21 +1000, The pixel Bandit
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
applies to Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens

Absolutely my thought too.

I've no idea what Nikon were dreaming about when they designed
the interface but as far as quality imaging goes... Nikon
Capture 2NX is unsurpassed.

Second best is Capture one 4. Amazing noise control and almost
as good at pulling detail and colours as Nikon's own software.

I had a lot of problems with my D700 RAW files. It seems most
RAW converters can't read the Nikon files properly and do a
'dirty' conversion.

I bought DxO Optics Pro some time ago but it had to be
upgraded to Elite version before reading the D700's files. A
Total an utter waste of good money. OK with Canon files but no
way in this world is it worth a cent with Nikon D700 files.

I just wish Nikon Capture 2NX would read s5 Fuji file. These
are still an amazing camera but the Fuji supplied RAW
converter is junk...

Interestingly...I bought Paint Shop Pro in a duty free shop as
I exited the US last month ($40) I think from memory. Just for
something to read on the plane. It opens Fuji files pretty
nicely but there is no RAW adjustment beforehand. It's not
that good on D900 stuff, blowing the highlights where the
Nikon software preserves it.

I have found it to make a reasonable job of D300 files. I fed it a
D300 NEF heavily edited by NX2 and found that PSP did what appeared
to be a good job of opening that also, complete with all its edits. My
only complaint was that it was extremely slow (I went away and had
lunch). I am still coming to grips with PSP so I'm not in a position
to comment on its quality.


A couple of examples he
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au...VNikon-NX2.htm

If you're interested..



Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:22:00 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw convertors
in the news groups with the merits of everything from Bibble to
Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the Nikonians
D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which applies to
Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is familiar
with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from Canon?) and
was disappointed with the results he obtained from first his D300 and
then the D700. He particularly remarked that with Photoshop and
Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and lifeless. He then
tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the difference it made. He
doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?) but now strongly
recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens

Just out of curiosity, have you tried ufraw?

On 30 Jul 2009 02:26:06 GMT, ray wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:22:00 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw convertors
in the news groups with the merits of everything from Bibble to
Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the Nikonians
D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which applies to
Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is familiar
with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from Canon?) and
was disappointed with the results he obtained from first his D300 and
then the D700. He particularly remarked that with Photoshop and
Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and lifeless. He then
tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the difference it made. He
doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?) but now strongly
recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens

Just out of curiosity, have you tried ufraw?

I think I tried it on the raw files from the D70 but abandoned it. I
haven't tried it on the D300.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:44:21 +1000, The pixel Bandit
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
applies to Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens
Absolutely my thought too.

I've no idea what Nikon were dreaming about when they designed
the interface but as far as quality imaging goes... Nikon
Capture 2NX is unsurpassed.

Second best is Capture one 4. Amazing noise control and almost
as good at pulling detail and colours as Nikon's own software.

I had a lot of problems with my D700 RAW files. It seems most
RAW converters can't read the Nikon files properly and do a
'dirty' conversion.

I bought DxO Optics Pro some time ago but it had to be
upgraded to Elite version before reading the D700's files. A
Total an utter waste of good money. OK with Canon files but no
way in this world is it worth a cent with Nikon D700 files.

I just wish Nikon Capture 2NX would read s5 Fuji file. These
are still an amazing camera but the Fuji supplied RAW
converter is junk...

Interestingly...I bought Paint Shop Pro in a duty free shop as
I exited the US last month ($40) I think from memory. Just for
something to read on the plane. It opens Fuji files pretty
nicely but there is no RAW adjustment beforehand. It's not
that good on D900 stuff, blowing the highlights where the
Nikon software preserves it.

I have found it to make a reasonable job of D300 files. I fed it a
D300 NEF heavily edited by NX2 and found that PSP did what appeared
to be a good job of opening that also, complete with all its edits. My
only complaint was that it was extremely slow (I went away and had
lunch). I am still coming to grips with PSP so I'm not in a position
to comment on its quality.

A couple of examples he
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au...VNikon-NX2.htm

If you're interested..



Eric Stevens


Yes... PSP is not too bad on D90, D60 and my old D200 files
either. I'm beginning to suspect the hi ISO lo noise results
from a D700 are a hell of a lot of software processing and not
much at all to do with sensor technology. Time will tell I guess!

--

I'm coming back as a Pelican...
Watch out because I'm staying the worlds biggest ass-hole!

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009 02:26:06 GMT, ray wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:22:00 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw convertors
in the news groups with the merits of everything from Bibble to
Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the Nikonians
D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which applies to
Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is familiar
with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from Canon?) and
was disappointed with the results he obtained from first his D300 and
then the D700. He particularly remarked that with Photoshop and
Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and lifeless. He then
tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the difference it made. He
doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?) but now strongly
recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens
Just out of curiosity, have you tried ufraw?

I think I tried it on the raw files from the D70 but abandoned it. I
haven't tried it on the D300.



Eric Stevens

It's not real brilliant on the FF Nikons. My new D3 just
arrived an hour ago and I tried its files on PSP. Same sort of
thing as with the D700. No highlight preservation... Which
confirms my thoughts that software plays a serious part in
producing the results Nikon are getting.

--

I'm coming back as a Pelican...
Watch out because I'm staying the worlds biggest ass-hole!

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:31:38 +1000, The pixel Bandit wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009 02:26:06 GMT, ray wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:22:00 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
applies to Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens
Just out of curiosity, have you tried ufraw?

I think I tried it on the raw files from the D70 but abandoned it. I
haven't tried it on the D300.



Eric Stevens

It's not real brilliant on the FF Nikons. My new D3 just arrived an hour
ago and I tried its files on PSP. Same sort of thing as with the D700.
No highlight preservation... Which confirms my thoughts that software
plays a serious part in producing the results Nikon are getting.

Thanks for the information - that would tend to make Nikon a no-go for
me, then, since I'm totally Linux.

In message , ray
writes
Thanks for the information - that would tend to make Nikon a no-go for
me, then, since I'm totally Linux.

Strange decision... You base your photographic gear on a computer OS?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:
In message , ray
writes
Thanks for the information - that would tend to make Nikon a no-go
for me, then, since I'm totally Linux.

Strange decision... You base your photographic gear on a computer OS?

Yes, I thought that as well, Chris. I choose my applications first, and
then they more or less dictate the OS.

I would have expected, though, that the WINE support in Linux might have
allowed most raw converters to run.....

David