Loading...

NikonD100_D200@yahoogroups.com

[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

[Nikon D100 D200] Re: Capture NX vs ... Robert Jones Thu May 24 18:03:17 2007

I did a fairly thorough personal evaluation of Lightroom vs Capture NX. 
  Here are my conclusions:

o In my experience, CNX is slow, buggy, and has an awkward interface.  I 
regularly see the annoying "line at the top left" bug and CNX crashes 
fairly often.  On the good side, the color control points are powerful 
and intuitive.  I often use them to fix problems.  The color produced by 
CNX is fantastic.

o Lightroom is very well engineered and very fast: it takes full 
advantage of my dual-core processor.  I like the interface and the 
combination of tools.  I didn't try the printing support, because I use 
Qimage.  The problem with Lightroom is the color.  Because Adobe doesn't 
  have access to all of the Nikon settings stored in the RAW file, it's 
nearly impossible (for me at least) to produce similar colors.  I was 
never able to match the output of CNX.

Bottom line: while I prefer almost everything about Lightroom 
(especially the speed), I'm using CNX because of the color.  The control 
points are a nice bonus.

Robert

> 2a. Re: Capture NX vs ...
>     Posted by: "Rick Gordon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] rgordon280
>     Date: Wed May 23, 2007 9:03 pm ((PDT))
> 
> yeah, i haven't given up on it, but I was feeling rather exasperated  
> that as I added changes to the image pipeline it just seemed to bog down
> rather severely. I've not really played with the control points yet,  
> nor gotten into much of the interface - but either something was  
> wrong or
> its not going to be an every day workflow item. Bridge/PS certainly  
> work much better in that regard, and both Aperture and LightRoom also
> show that there's potential to do things fast.
> 
> I'll check out the Nikonians forum and see what there is there.