Printable View
I should point out that the camera company knows their camera best including the chip and image quality weaknesses. As a result it is often the case that one or more features on the software provided with the camera produces better results than a similar feature(s) in other photo editors.
For that reason, it is worth taking a look at the included software when you buy a camera. It may lack sophistication, but if it does a few things better or faster than Photoshop, then it is worth using.
Tegan
Agreed (Nikon CaptureNX - prime example) is this in reference to anything, or just a general thought?
To a comment elsewhere, I figured rather than hijack the thread, I would start a new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by tirediron
Tegan
I agree... and sometimes to an extent... the cameras own internal raw/jpeg converting mechanisms...
An example would be my D60... at high ISO's the incamera noise reduction smokes the Nikon NEF to JPG converters in NX. This is unbelievably stupid and annoying. Nikon is for some reason unable to reproduce their noise reduction algorithm in their own transfer software. This was even mentioned in a recent pop photog.
I'm better off shooting JPEG at ISO800... if not I have to run my NEF's through noise reduction processes AFTER THE CONVERSION TO JPG....
Of all the camera makers... Nikon is noted as the worst for providing 3rd party software developers (ie adobe) any information regarding their propriatary NEF format. This leave developers to "best guess" how to process the image.
If Nikon made anything close to reasonable developing software, I would understand the pensiveness. Nikon really needs to put some money into developer software and have a firm understanding of its importance in todays digital market. Their current software is very poorly constructed. It's a huge resource hog under a poor, time consuming, mono style framework.
Adobes Lightroom2 exemplifies a speedy and logical developing workspace. The only thing that slows me down is they haven't nailed Nikons (or at least the D60's) nef format. So I have to spend extra time bringing the RAW file in line with what the jpeg would have looked like. The Nikon software starts you off with the RAW file processing with the in camera settings. I like this because I spend time setting up my camera for a shoot. Lightrooms conversion is so far off I shouldn't even bother setting up the camera.
I love the Sony software that came with my camera.
Picture Motion Browser
Image Data Converter SR ver.2
Image Data Lightbox SR (asset management)
The lightbox is really good. I am an in-house graphic designer and freelance designer and I actually like the Sony Lightbox for asset management now for my freelance stuff. The only thing it doesn't have is some way to know where I shot the picture on a map. I have heard there is asset software out there that does that.
I have not used the Adobe Lightroom yet though so...
I find that once you load up Picture Motion Browser the first time, it becomes very fast to access and use a photo in real time or close to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindforge
Tegan
Just curious... Have you tried using camera profiles in Lightroom 2? Did they get you any closer to the JPEG?Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis
I've always used Adobe camera raw through photoshop or lightroom so I'm used to it and it's not really an issue for me.