Nikon’s RAW viewing and editing software might be slow, but it sure preserves colours better than Adobe.
Now, I will start this piece by saying that I am using version 4.3.1 of Adobe Camera RAW. There are later versions, bundled with Lightroom and Photoshop CS4. I run Photoshop CS3. So, if anyone out there is able to offer comparison screen-grabs from the later versions of CameraRaw, then that would be helpful to provide a complete picture to the whole business of opening RAW files.
But, for the purposes of this side-by-side review, I am running the following software:
- Nikon ViewNX, version 1.4
- Nikon CaptureNX, version 1.3.5
- Adobe Photoshop CS3
- Adobe CameraRAW, version 4.3.1
I used to use Adobe CS3 and its companion RAW plugin, CameraRAW, to open all my Nikon NEF files. That was until, one day, Photoshop was having a bit of a bad time and kept crashing on me. So, up against a deadline, I opened my NEF files in Capture for once.
Nikon’s proprietory RAW viewing and processing software is slow. Boy is it RAM-hungry too. And it invariably crashes when doing batch-conversions of large amounts of NEF files to, say, JPEG or TIFF. But I have found ways of working around this and my workaround for batch conversions is this:
- Select all the files, using Nikon ViewNX, that I want to convert
- Choose my re-sizing and file re-naming options.
- Shut down all other running software, to allow ViewNX the max amount of RAM it needs.
- Go and make myself a cup of coffee and have a smoke on my balcony [insert your own flavour of ten minute break here]
Using this methodology I can prepare low-rez JPEGs to show to clients, for them to make their choice of files to take forward to production. Or, I can batch convert to TIFF or high-rez JPEG to deliver a DVD-full of shots for a client. It depends on the job. But, this way I can get ViewNX to do the work without crashing.
So far, so good.
But how about when I need to use the RAW [NEF] file to start my post-processing? This is when CaptureNX comes into play.
Usually I am using CaptureNX just to open the file and to save it as a TIFF. If there are any wild errors in white-balance, I will also use CaptureNX to correct these as well. If I can see a wild variant in WB off of the thumbnails, ViewNX will suffice: convert the WB in one file, then apply that conversion to all the other files with the same WB problem.
But, for the times I am working on files individually which is most of the time, I open my NEF in CaptureNX, save it as a TIFF and then do the rest of my edits in Photoshop. It was in this first part of the post-processing where I discovered a startling difference between the way Nikon CaptureNX and the way that Adobe CameraRAW treats my RAW file.
And the best way of illustrating this difference is with screengrabs:
1. The NEF file of the octopus seen in Nikon ViewNX: I use this software to view all the shots from a shoot. I then grade them [***** for the best] and whittle down a selection to show the client or to work on in post. [click the image below for alarge version]
![Nikon NEF [RAW] file viewed as a thumbnail in ViewNX](http://japanorama.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nef_view.jpg "Nikon NEF [RAW] file viewed as a thumbnail in ViewNX")
2. The NEF file opened into Nikon CaptureNX: as you will see, colour is accurately preserved from what I see in the thumbnail in ViewNX and therefore what has come out of the camera.
![Nikon NEF [RAW] file opened in CaptureNX](http://japanorama.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nef_capture.jpg "Nikon NEF [RAW] file opened in CaptureNX")
3. The same NEF file opened directly into Photoshop, via its Adobe CameraRAW plugin [version 4.3.1]: as you see, the colour of the octopus is wildly different from the original colour; the colour, we see preserved accurately when opening the same file into CaptureNX. In fact, the brightness, contrast and tint are also different.
![Nikon NEF [RAW] file opened using Adobe CameraRAW](http://japanorama.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nef_adobe.jpg "Nikon NEF [RAW] file opened using Adobe CameraRAW")
Conclusions?
1. Do your own tests, as if you are running Lightroom or a later version of Photoshop it will doubtless have either CameraRAW 4.5 or 4.6 running. Maybe an even later version. I would, as I said at the beginning of this piece, be interested to hear of your own experiences when doing a similar comparitive test. If you are using the same versions of Photoshop and Nikon software as me, do a test to convince yourself of the differences. If you are a Canon user, set up a test and see what happens.
2. Investigate the other software on the market: If you are a Canon user, your RAW processing software leaves a lot to be desired and you may well have chosen something else already and there are good alternatives out there for both Canon and Nikon, incuding Bibble, SilkyPix, Phase One and various others. Links at the bottom of this page point at some of the alternatives. If you know of others, leave a comment and a link please. Thanks.
3. Be wary of ‘jack-of-all-trades software packages: RAW processing is a specific and important part of digital workflow. Why go to the trouble of shooting RAW [the subject of the next piece I will write] or having an expensive DSLR, if shitty conversion of the RAW files leaves you with bad results? Photoshop, Lightroom… these are packages that do wonderful post-procesing work but they are not bespoke RAW conversion software. The software that comes with your camera, though often not the best GUI, is developed for working specifically to convert RAW files from your model of camera. Try it first, compare it to other post-pro software you have and see what you get. If you are serious about your photography, get serious about your RAW files. They are your digital negatives and correct processing will mean you get the best results from them.
Useful Links:
- Google Search on ‘RAW conversion software’ - a good place to start loking around
- The PhotoTestCenter – their post on this subject
- Bibble
- SilkyPix
- PhaseOne’s ‘CaptureOnePro’ - universal RAW processing for most leading makes of camera. Very good, superb interface, great colour-depth preservation and correction/processing tools. But, expensive [Capture One Pro 5 is $399] and very RAM-hungry. I ran a trial for 30-days and typically the program is burning through around 280mb of RAM just on tick-over.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I don’t have CaptureNX, but ViewNX displays color more vividly for me over Adobe CameraRAW 5.3.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Cheers. That would probably suggest that CaptureNX would do the same. 5.3 must be the latest Adobe RAW, yes?
November 25th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Alfie, my Lightroom is updated to the latest patch and, as it always has done, it renders my pics less saturated and flatter than what I see in say ViewNX. I do like the RAW processor in Lightroom – functionality, interface, speed, etc – just wish the pics look a little more accurate coming ou of the camera.
There is a semi fix for this, though. Create a preset for your camera that increases the saturation and contrast slightly and apply to all pics when importing. Not ideal, but it works.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Useful tip for a quick-fix there Rob. I gotta say, as I have just dusted off the trial I had of Phase One’s Capture One Pro, that it is awesome. Just wish it didnt chew through RAM like a dog who hasnt seen a bone in a year…. bloody crazy amount of resource usage just to have the thing on. God forbid what it uses when it’s processing batches of files. Maybe speed = crap colour balance or something. Seems that the faster the processor [Lightroom/Photoshop], the crappier the results.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:56 am
We did a comparison of Lightroom with the Nikon profiles and Capture NX 2.
<a href="http://www.daviddrufke.com/photography-blog/2009/11/capture-nx-vs-lightroom-2-profiles/" Capture NX vs. Lightroom
December 9th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Hi Alfie, I am researching opportunities for an 04/2010 trip to Japan and discovered your article on NX1/2 CS3, etc.
Have you had a peek at Ischikawa Inc software called ‘SilkyPix’ I have been using it in preference to CS3 and NX2 for 2 years and find it is simply perfect! (available in Japanes and English versions) I own SilkyPix, CS2 and NX2 but find I only use SilkyPix for RAW to TIF, then CS2 for TIF editing.
I plan to arrive 1st week April 2010 and hope to meet again. Our 2009 hanami images can be seen at http://www.cerity.co.uk/japan2
Barry in UK
December 9th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Cheers Barry. Had checked out an earlier version of SilkyPix but havent done so recently. Will give it a whirl. Get in touch when you know exactly when you’ll be around Tokyo and let’s try and catch up.
Alfie
December 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Guys, how about calibrating your PCs first and then play with colors? Just an idea.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Yep, having a well-calibrated screen is obviously important. But, the difference in colour rendition between these two pieces of software is still as marked whether you are doing it on a calibrated screen or not. But yes, valid point Adam. If you want perfect colour from camera to output then a calibrated screen is the way to go. And remember, the amount of light falling on your screen is a factor too. So, once you are thinking ‘perfect’ and ‘calibration’ then you have to think about either darkened room, shaded monitor etc etc and about the angle of the screen to your face; noticed how the brightness, contrast and colour change on the screen as you tilt it or move your eye-level up, down or to either side? It all effects the relationship between what you see and what you get…… :-
December 19th, 2009 at 9:33 am
It looks like Adobe RAW is up to 5.6, but I haven’t updated. I’ll do that now.
March 13th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
If you do your test on a non-calibrated monitor your comments are worthless. A calibrated screen is not “the way to go” it is the only reference we have. You might also want to check the camera profiles in the camera profiles tab of Adobe RAW. You are probably on a generic Adobe camera profile, not the one you should use for your specific camera model. Huge difference in color, saturation, contrast depending on what profiles you use there. I suggest to use professional procedures (like using i1 or similar gear) and use the proper camera profiles in ACR before jumping to conclusions.
More on this:http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/
And especially: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor
March 14th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Thanks for your input. First of all, my monitor is calibrated. Secondly, I use the correct profiles for my camera… not a generic Adobe profile. Thirdly, the difference betwen saying a calibrated monitor is ‘the way to go’ and describing it as you did is, IMHO, merely a question of semantics.
My methodology has changed somewhat since writing this article as I now have the D700 and Capture NX required me to upgrade in order to be even able to open the D700 files. So, as I’d just spent $3000 on a new camera and Nikon in Japan are too stingey to throw NX in for free. And seeing as – apart from the colour preservation – there is little reason to recommend NX, as a lot of it is very counter-intuitive and just poorly written, I have now switched to using Capture One, which has superb colour rendition and has profiles built in to it for all the main cameras, including the D700 and the Mamiya ZD back I use on the 645AFD III. Despite using a calibrated monitor, the correct camera profile etc etc, I still see better colour preservation through Capture One than I ever do through ACR. I can only assume therefore that Adobe’s profile for the D700 is not as good as the algorithm Capture One use: colours are desaturated in ACR and correct and vibrant through Capture One. I am a professional so as far as I can I always try to use professional procedures.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“Thanks for your input. First of all, my monitor is calibrated. Secondly, I use the correct profiles for my camera…”
That being the case I apologize for the snotty tone of my last mail. If you use Capture One how do you integrate it in your workflow? What do you use for image management? I am a Canon shooter by the way.
March 14th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
No worries. Generally I am still using ViewNX as part of my workflow whilst migrating to Capture One… particularly to grade up and batch convert large amounts of NEF files, as I still find its quicker than using Capture. All the MF digital is processed and flowed using Capture. I also do all my tethered shooting into Capture. Image management is generally something I handle with a file-naming structure first: year, month, day folders – subtitled with name of shoot or client. After that, all the images that get used for publication get IPTC meta in them when I am doing my final edits in Photoshop. Generally I can find images when requested within about five minutes.