If You Are Nikon User, Do you Use Capture NX?

[Silentwave]

Tried capture once, version 4.3, never again, after conversion the colours seemed flat,now use CS3, Photoshop is the Daddie,
but a few months back i was standing next to a young lady purchasing her
1st Nikon DSLR, and the 'expert' at Jessops gave it the Nikon Spiel when she asked about shooting in RAW,"to get the best blah blah blah Nikon capture NX."

NX is completely different than Capture 4.3. Also, unless you have a dramatically wrong setting in camera, your colors etc. should be *more* vivid with Capture than with PS CS3 out of the box.

I do use NX whenever I need a very high quality raw conversion. Other than that, I use Aperture. I do not use ACR for Nikon files

 

[compuwar]

Tried capture once, version 4.3, never again, after conversion the colours seemed flat,now use CS3, Photoshop is the Daddie,
but a few months back i was standing next to a young lady purchasing her
1st Nikon DSLR, and the 'expert' at Jessops gave it the Nikon Spiel when she asked about shooting in RAW,"to get the best blah blah blah Nikon capture NX."

I'd recommend downloading an NX trial and comparing the results on a few of your images for yourself. ACR's conversion isn't as good as Nikon's and side-by-side the differences are quite apparent. While I prefer ACR's interface by miles, the results image-wise speak for themselves.

I find that generally if you're looking for plug and play results, D-lighting on gives PS-like colors, though more realistic IMO. Just like the ACR engine though, you can adjust color, contrast, brightness, exposure, etc.

 

[compuwar]

Two of the programs didn't seem concerned about original color space conversion, but here's a crop of a small screen area of a shot of my laptop with the redpill screen saver running. The detail areas are quite different, especially when you enlarge the resulting file. As I said, the color shift is probably from where I white pointed each file, and I haven't examined a print yet (which is the real proof) but there's definitely a difference in each converter. Bibble is lower and IMO second to NX in terms of detail- though I'm not sure how much is JPEG vs NEF, I'm going to do a whole series of TIFF and prints at some point just so I can be sure I've got everything right- probably off studio lights with UniWB set if I get that done- however in the "quick shot to proof at W*M" or "quick shot to Web for customer" categories, I'm pretty sure there's going to be a difference in the prints even though I've been excessively pixel peeping this stuff for the last couple of days.

 

[tracktionmonkey]

Yes!

I have to say NX whilst slow on a 1.67 Powerbook:
gives me the best quality results.
And once learnt is easier to use than Photoshop.
And almost as powerful.
Check out the ebook at http://www.luminescentphoto.com/capturenx.html
if you do end up using NX.
Also Nikonians http://www.nikonians.org/
for all things Nikon.

 

[termina3]

nope, aperture

although I have heard some suggest using NX... I don't

 

[devman]

Nope, not me either (same as most in this thread it seems).

 

[Mark Scheuern]

I was using Capture 4 (4.whatever it was) until a few weeks ago and now use Adobe Lightroom for raw conversion, keywording, etc. I didn't dislike Capture but I was pretty taken with Lightroom so I decided to skip NX.