which software combination?

siblingchris

siblingchris

Messages
1,353
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I am not new to post processing, however RAW is new to me as is my Nikon D7000

I'm trying to get my head around what might be the best software combination

Currently I have
1) Lightroom 4 trial
2) View NX that came with the camera
3) PSE 5 (yes I know its ancient!)
4) Gimp

what I have realised is that I do need some combination of 1 or 2 with 3 or 4, that is RAW processing plus extended individual image editing capability.

So far I am not not sold on Lightroom's catalogue (LR is a database!) and I manage quite happily organising folders logically myself.

With my limited use of the trial of LR, it strikes me there are things I am expecting to be able to do that it can't. Am I right in saying adjustments can only be done on the whole image because there are no selection tools? Are there any alternatives that would allow for this? I was looking at Capture NX but nikon's awful web site put me off!

as you might tell, I am struggling to see the wood for the trees! :shrug:
 
Without knowing what you do it's a bit tricky, but I'd go with LR4 for the raw conversion and batch editing and either Gimp or Elements for the clever stuff that LR doesn't do.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Without knowing what you do it's a bit tricky, but I'd go with LR4 for the raw conversion and batch editing and either Gimp or Elements for the clever stuff that LR doesn't do.
Click to expand...

Thanks. At the moment I don't know what I do either! As I say, I'm new to working with RAW files, so still working on my typical workflow at the same time trying to assess what I think the best bits of s/w are

In the past I've relied on PSE for editing JPG, sharpening, brightness/contrast, tone curves and saturation primarily. Sometime cloning things out fixing blemishes etc but nothing major as I'd prefer to concentrate on getting shots right in the camera rather than sat in front of the screen for days on end
 
TheDrift- said:
You can brush in adjustment locally using the adjustment brush, you can also use gradients to localise effects
Click to expand...

Okay then I need to dig out some tutorials!

I was trying to apply a gradient filter to the sky in a shot the other day and no matter what it seemed to apply it to the whole image....not spotted the adjustment brush either
 
Lightroom - basic raw edit

Then ( if necessary)

Photoshop CS5 - fancy stuff

Then ( if necessary)

Topaz de noise or noise ninja

Then

Sharpen and save

Rough guide of my workflow software wise
 
I've only used View NX2 & Lightroom 3, and generally prefer View NX2 as there is no requirement to "import" images in the program and any edits are saved to the NEF file itself rather than having to maintain a separate catalog file.
 
If you are used to pse then why not stick with that?
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I've only used View NX2 & Lightroom 3, and generally prefer View NX2 as there is no requirement to "import" images in the program and any edits are saved to the NEF file itself rather than having to maintain a separate catalog file.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is one thing that puts me off with LR a bit, you have to import to its catalogue

I was thinking I might trial Capture NX
Have been reading that is comparable to LR and for Nikon actually manages to sometimes maintain detail better and represent colours more accurately
 
siblingchris said:
Thanks. At the moment I don't know what I do either! As I say, I'm new to working with RAW files, so still working on my typical workflow at the same time trying to assess what I think the best bits of s/w are

In the past I've relied on PSE for editing JPG, sharpening, brightness/contrast, tone curves and saturation primarily. Sometime cloning things out fixing blemishes etc but nothing major as I'd prefer to concentrate on getting shots right in the camera rather than sat in front of the screen for days on end
Click to expand...

Lightroom will do most of this well, it's not as good at cloning/healing bit, but if your just fixing the odd spot it should be fine, if your trying to remove more tricky items you'll be better off with elements for that part.
 
Get the Capture NX2 trial and look at some of the quick tips on the internet,
such as here
and here make sure that you try the Control Points .
The good thing about View NX2 and Capture NX2 is that they read all the camera info in the raw file and apply all the camera settings. If you don't like them you can just change them in the program but they give a good starting point.
I do over 90% of my editing in Capture NX2 only going to Elements when I need better cloning or healing tools or if I want to combine 2 photos - i.e. drop a sky from one picture to another.
 
siblingchris said:
Yeah this is one thing that puts me off with LR a bit, you have to import to its catalogue

I was thinking I might trial Capture NX
Have been reading that is comparable to LR and for Nikon actually manages to sometimes maintain detail better and represent colours more accurately
Click to expand...

I've got Capture NX2 and it's a good companion program to use with View NX2.
The main difference seems to be that Capture NX2 has "control points" where you can do localised edits on just part of an image.

Having said that I can't remember the last time I actually used control points so mainly just stick to using View NX2.

One thing to remember is that once you have made any edits, however slight in CNX2 you can no longer edit that same file in VNX2, which is a bit annoying which is another reason I tend to stick with VNX2.
 
siblingchris said:
.So far I am not not sold on Lightroom's catalogue (LR is a database!) and I manage quite happily organising folders logically myself.
Click to expand...

You can do both. My Lightroom catalog is a mirror of my folder structure in Windows 7. I copy photos from my camera's card into a newly created directory named for the date the photos were taken then import the whole thing into LR. After processing the photos are moved to other folders based on the subject category.

Lightroom is flexible enough that you can make it work the way you work.
 
Does Capture NX include lens profiles to correct distortion etc. like LR does?

Also the comment about once edited in Capture NX the saved file doesn't work in View NX, bothers me that what is produced isn't a standard RAW (NEF) file so limits what you do with it next. Is this really the case or did I misunderstand?
 
siblingchris said:
So far I am not not sold on Lightroom's catalogue (LR is a database!) and I manage quite happily organising folders logically myself.
Click to expand...

It is not just about organising folders logically. If you keyword as you enter images you will be able for instance to very quickly pull out all the butterflies you have shot since you started using it, or red flowers or cloudscapes etc etc
 
siblingchris said:
Does Capture NX include lens profiles to correct distortion etc. like LR does?

Also the comment about once edited in Capture NX the saved file doesn't work in View NX, bothers me that what is produced isn't a standard RAW (NEF) file so limits what you do with it next. Is this really the case or did I misunderstand?
Click to expand...

The only limitation is that you can no longer edit it in View NX2 anymore - not a major problem as Capture NX2 can do all the same editing as VNX2 plus far more. You can still edit the NEF normally in non Nikon editors like CS6 & Lightroom as these programs will simply ignore the Nikon specific data in the NEF that was added by CNX2.

I would like to see a feature in CNX2 that would allow you to revert back to the original NEF so that it could then be edited in VNX2.
 
boliston said:
The only limitation is that you can no longer edit it in View NX2 anymore - not a major problem as Capture NX2 can do all the same editing as VNX2 plus far more. You can still edit the NEF normally in non Nikon editors like CS6 & Lightroom as these programs will simply ignore the Nikon specific data in the NEF that was added by CNX2.

I would like to see a feature in CNX2 that would allow you to revert back to the original NEF so that it could then be edited in VNX2.
Click to expand...

Why would you want that given that the more capable editor does everything the other can?
 
siblingchris said:
Why would you want that given that the more capable editor does everything the other can?
Click to expand...

It's just handy to be able to manage all my NEFS within one piece of software rather than being forced to manage a few of them in another piece of software.

For example I can't even export a file as a jpeg within VNX2 once that file has been edited in CNX2.

Also CNX2 is very slow and clunky whereas VNX2 is very fast.

I'm not even sure if CNX2 is 64bit - got a feeling it could only be 32 bit.
 
Last edited:
You cannot re-edit CNX2 edited photos in VNX2 as only CNX2 can understand editing done with Control Points etc.
Although View NX2 is, supposedly, faster than Capture NX2 as it is a stripped down version I never use View NX2 any more. Capture NX2 is just so much better.
For example, sharpening in VNX2 is done with a slider with 10 fixed steps from 0 to 10, in CNX2 you can use Unsharp Mask or High Pass with all the tweaking that you want. Other editing steps have finer adjustments as well.
Another advantage is the ability to edit parts of the picture using Control Points and masks - including gradients. When you add the opacity adjustments and the blending modes, levels control, curves etc CNX2 is just a greatly superior program.
It is also possible to temporarily "switch off" any adjustment that you have made or delete it all together, no matter where it is in the the stages of editing. You can also save different versions of a picture in the same file. A simple example is cropping, you can crop a picture to a certain size and save it as a version. you can then untick that crop setting and make a different crop and save that as a new setting. You can then save the one file with both crops included. If you can imagine doing that with other, multiple editing sets you begin to realise how useful it is. You can have a Vivid, oversharpened version and a Mono blurry version etc. etc. No more saving the same picture multiple times just because you have done different editing steps.
You can also edit jpegs using most of the CNX2 editing tools and save the edited file as a NEF. Obviously this does not mean that you have created a raw file from a jpeg but it saves all the editing steps in the program and does not overwrite the original file, you can then go back and change editing steps whenever you wish.

Some more info Here
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I have got a lot of NEFS that I have edited in CNX2 and they can be viewed fine in VNX2.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I should have said that you cannot re-edit NEFs in VNX2 if they have been edited in CNX2 - as in your original post. :bonk:

I have amended my incorrect post so that it makes sense (well a bit more sense anyway :D )
 
siblingchris said:
So far I am not not sold on Lightroom's catalogue (LR is a database!) and I manage quite happily organising folders logically myself.
Click to expand...

There is a hell of a lot more to Lightroom's cataloging than simply putting things in folders.

With your current system how easy would it be for you to find an image of Aunty Ethel and Alice Cooper, at the zoo feeding an aardvark? With a LR catalog and images that have been properly keyworded it would take a few seconds.


Oh, best combination is LR and PSE. LR does 99% of what I need PSE would do 99% of what's left.
 
Last edited:
I am just moving over to raw after 5 years using JPEG. Up to now I have been using Photoshop CS2 for PP.

I got Lightroom 3 with my camera (Panasonic G3) and after trying (well, glancing at more like, in a very superficial way) several RAW editors I decided to start out by trying to use Lightroom, at least to load the raw files and pass them over to CS2 for PP.

I won't be using Lightroom's Cataloguing facilities for longer term image management. I have my images organised in a way that works for me and don't feel the need for added metadata and associated searching to find what I need. That might, possibly, change in due course.

I have not yet decided whether to use Lightroom for the image selection phase of operations (I typically come back with 600 - 1,000+ images to sort through after a session at a nature reserve or in the garden.) I currently use Faststone for this, but I think Lightroom might turn out to be as quick and a bit easier once I familiarise myself with how it does things.

I was sufficiently impressed with Lightroom's processing facilities that I decided to upgrade to version 4 (because for example it has Shadows and Highlights directly implemented rather than a more roundabout method in version 3, and it has localised noise reduction - turns out that shadows and highlights can be used localised too).

It's not that Lightroom can do everything that Photoshop can, or even the much more limited range of things that I want to do in PP, but it does deliver some powerful facilities that can be used quickly and easily to get files into a nice state for handing over to CS2, and the handover is easy and quick. I'm finding the (global-effect) colour controls very handy indeed, and I'm finding its (local-effect) adjustment brush very powerful, especially if you turn masking on.

Lightroom does things differently from Photoshop, Elements, GIMP etc. Especially with the adjustment brush it seems to work a bit like I recall Helicon Filter working when I used it for a while several years ago. Some of the power and convenience is not immediately visible and I'm finding I'm having to work a bit to get my head around how Lightroom does things - I've watched videos at the Adobe site and now have a chunky book about it.

One distinct weakness in Lightroom is output sharpening, which is very crude in the options it provides. (The Shadows and Highlights lack the options that Photoshop provides too.)

I don't know what the balance is going to turn out to be between Lightroom and Photoshop, but my experience to date suggests that those are going to be the pair of products I use. (And btw I really don't want to spend shedloads of dosh upgrading Photoshop. About the only thing I am missing is a 16-bit noise reduction plugin in Photoshop. I'm currently using Noiseware 8-bit, but unfortunately it seems that all the 16-bit plugins need at least CS3. I can't convince myself that that is sufficient reason to spend the money on a Photoshop upgrade.)
 
GardenersHelper said:
I have not yet decided whether to use Lightroom for the image selection phase of operations (I typically come back with 600 - 1,000+ images to sort through after a session at a nature reserve or in the garden.) I currently use Faststone for this, but I think Lightroom might turn out to be as quick and a bit easier once I familiarise myself with how it does things.
Click to expand...

It really is quite good for image culling. Go into loupe mode, where the image is displayed full screen. Make sure Caps Lock is On and display the first image. Then press 'P' for images you want to Pick for further processing 'X' for images that you want to reject and 'U' for undecided images. Once you've run through them all you can press Ctrl-Backspace to delete all the rejects.
 
hollis_f said:
It really is quite good for image culling. Go into loupe mode, where the image is displayed full screen. Make sure Caps Lock is On and display the first image. Then press 'P' for images you want to Pick for further processing 'X' for images that you want to reject and 'U' for undecided images. Once you've run through them all you can press Ctrl-Backspace to delete all the rejects.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Those keystrokes and operations are exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of in terms of first needing to uncover them and then become familiar with them. I am doing a lot of practice at the moment to develop enough familiarity so I don't need to think about which keys to press for basic operations.

Your suggested approach should work nicely to cull the many obvious non-runners (I have a very high failure rate because of the way I go about my capturing). I think I would typically end up with almost all of the rest, and sometimes all, undecided. The next phase would be sequences of pairwise comparisons to identify the one to be processed (if any) from the unculled "takes" for each scene. The Select/Candidate system looks promising for this, with its synchronised windows and navigator, and associated keystrokes for moving between images and flagging.

(Having deleted the X's first time round, I might do another trawl and delete new X's before switching to pairwise comparisons.)

The way the moving between images works in Select/Candidate mode was for me another of those "needs to be uncovered" things. I found using the Select/Candidate facility totally baffling and highly frustrating for a while until I worked out what was going on (yes, I know, RTFM :D ), at which point it suddenly started to look like a rather clever arrangement. It's obviously going to take a while to work out how much (or not) I like this product and what role for it works best for me.
 
GardenersHelper said:
One distinct weakness in Lightroom is output sharpening, which is very crude in the options it provides.
Click to expand...

I still think the options are crude, but I'm having doubts as to whether that is really such a weakness, for me at least. (I'm in early and heavy learning mode with Lightroom at the moment which is how I have managed to change my mind so quickly). I'm starting to get (what look to me like) nice results without going in to Photoshop to do the output sharpening. I haven't tested preparing images for printing yet, but for viewing on screen it appears that (at least for my type of images) I can get the sharpness I want despite the crude options for output sharpening in Lightroom (High, medium or low, and no control of radius whatsoever, or anything else).

In fact, I have spent several hours today trying to see what I can achieve with Lightroom for some favourite (JPEG) images that I have processed rather carefully in Photoshop in the past year or so, coming back to some of them several times as my PP techniques have developed. Very much to my surprise, I have several times in a row got better (to my eye) results from Lightroom (after a couple of days using it) than my best attempts with Photoshop (after several years of doing rather a lot of PP and experimenting with various techniques in Photoshop).

There are obviously things you simply can't do in Lightroom, like Photoshop's perspective correction and more generalised warping (which I do use sometimes). But I'm finding that the lack of some facilities in Lightroom such as layers is less significant (to me) than I thought it would be because for what (admittedly limited) use I make of them there are alternatives in Lightroom. Other people's mileage will very definitely differ, but I continue to be surprised at just how much can be achieved in Lightroom, and achieved quite easily too once you get your head around how Lightroom goes about things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top