PP Software....Unique Dilemna.

Dave in Wales

Dave in Wales

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,373
Edit My Images
Yes
I haver a Nikon D7000 and use Windows XP.
I'm in the market for a PP software programme for NEF files.

I've have trial versions of both Capture NX2 and PE9.
I quite like both programmes, PE9 having far more 'tweaks' than CNX2.

It seems to be the opinion here that CNX2 is far better for NEF files than any other software...Nikon RAW, hence Nikon PP software.
This is my 'feeling also.

My dilemna is I think unique, as no one seem to be able to help.

Part of CNX2 I cannot open, namely the 'Picture Control Utility'
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=301669

I'm aware that the 'tweaks' available in the PCU are available elsewhere in CNX2 but I cannot get my head around buying a programme (£130) knowing that there is a section that I cannot open.

Like buying a new car with the radio not working.
I NEVER use the a radio in a car, BUT I do like it to work.

Perhaps NEF aficionados could tell if it makes much difference editing NEF in CNX2 or PE9 and would I notice the difference anyway.

HELP, anybody, Help.

D in W:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
 
Last edited:
Not a help for you, but have you considered Adobe Lightroom?
 
CNX2 is better than PSE9 for converting NEF files.

As you probably realise if you had the trial version the U Point control points make editing very easy and quick compared with creating complicated masks etc.

The Highlight & Shadow recovery is also excellent as is the exposure compensation.

One main advantage is the fact that all your camera settings are read by CNX2 and applied non-destructively to the picture. You can shoot in NEF and have the contrast, sharpness etc set to what you want in camera and these settings are applied when you open the photo in CNX2.
You can even shoot in NEF and set the camera to Portrait, Landscape etc and CNX2 will read the settings and apply them.
If the settings give the result you want then you do not need to adjust further, if you want to change any of the settings you can do so.

The healing brush in CNX2 is OK for dust spots & small areas but is not as good as PSE9, also CNX2 does not have a clone tool.

As CNX2 does not have layers you cannot add bits from one picture to another and you cannot add text, textures etc.

I tend to do all my main editing in CNX2 and go to Paint.Net for cloning, layers etc if needed.

I recently downloaded a trial of PSE9 to use alongside CNX2 and was tempted, mainly by the content aware healing tool, but decided not to buy it as I could get similar results with Paint.Net.

In your other thread you say that you cannot get the Picture Control Utility to work. Personally I never use it as the adjustments can be made better in the main CNX2 program. Where PCU is an advantage is when you want to download a custom Picture Control to your camera to take a number of shots with a particular style, something I have not wanted to do so far.
 
Sorry Im of no help to you, but this is one good reason why everytime someone at work asks me which one to choose between canon and nikon, I always emphasize that canon comes with an excellent program for manipulating images including raw files, and its FREE.
 
BazEP said:
Do you mean UFRaw doesn't? What makes you say that?
Click to expand...

Nikon NEF file Is far better on Capture NX2.

I have tried the same file, at 100% crop on 4 PP software.

These are my ratings..

1. CNX2, not by much over LR3, buy oh the price of LR3
2. LR3
3. PE9
4. Gimp/UFRaw.

IMVHO you understand.

For me it would be a no-brainer.....CNX2.

D in W
 
strobemonkey said:
Sorry Im of no help to you, but this is one good reason why everytime someone at work asks me which one to choose between canon and nikon, I always emphasize that canon comes with an excellent program for manipulating images including raw files, and its FREE.
Click to expand...

and with Nikon you can get View NX2 also free :)
 
Dave in Wales said:
There is I have tried that.

D in W
Click to expand...


Are you sure you are doing things correctly....I reckon some of the images you are seeing are of jpeg thumbnails as previews...not the actual raw file....you have me confused as I know many togs use LR and photoshop with a Nikon and don't complain who shoot thousands of images a week.
 
I have CNX and UFRaw/Gimp and find no difference other than CNX takes about 3 months to do anything on my pc (it is getting a bit long in the tooth to be fair).
 
Dave in Wales said:
Nikon NEF file Is far better on Capture NX2.

I have tried the same file, at 100% crop on 4 PP software.

These are my ratings..

1. CNX2, not by much over LR3, buy oh the price of LR3
2. LR3
3. PE9
4. Gimp/UFRaw.

IMVHO you understand.

For me it would be a no-brainer.....CNX2.

D in W
Click to expand...

What differences did you see between them? differences in sharpness/colour rendition/noise?
 
BazEP said:
What differences did you see between them? differences in sharpness/colour rendition/noise?
Click to expand...

Sharpness mainly, colour rendition/noise didn't seem be a problem with either of them....again IMVHO.

After all the trials and tribulations I have decided to give RAW the heave-ho.

If JPEG is good enough for uncle Ken then it's good enough for me.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

My main concern is sharpness, my lenses are Nikkor 16-85, 50 f1.8 and 105 Micro, all adding up to a good few quid, so I want SHARP PICTURES.

I have also started to jack up the ISO and use faster shutter speeds, using Auto ISO, a minimum speed of 1/125 in A mode.

If you want to see how the D7000 performs at high ISO's look here.......
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=293781&highlight=singapore

The last trial I did was a NEF file against the same JPEG file with minimal sharpening, they were both created in camera the same time.

Neither I nor my wife could differentiate between either of them.

Not very scientific maybe but it's the eye that does the seeing.

Watchout Ken....here I come. :wave:

ENDOV
Thanks to all who contributed.

D in W
 
I have come to the conclusion that you need to post examples ...purely for scientific research of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top