I hate to bring up a question that's probably been addressed but bare with me. LR3 and soon LR4 continue to improve at a rapid rate. Nix software is likewise constantly improving. Do you feel we are getting to the point where there are fewer and fewer advantages to using NX2? I appreciate people who are well versed in NX2 may have minimal motivation to change and are quite happy. But is that true of everyone, new-comers to NX2 included? For sake of argument, I acknowledge that NX2 is less money invested - but that aside - what remains the motivation to use Capture? Craig
#2. "RE: NX2 versus LR3 and Nix" In response to Reply # 0
New York, US
I used NX2 for five years and loved it. I still think that its RAW engine is the best out there. I love Control Points. For sort and labeling I was using Photo Mechanic.
Late last summer I switched to Lightroom. Why? • Its RAW engine is now quite good. • I find the develop controls to be more intuitive and quicker than NXs edit steps. • The Brush Tool is quite powerful and a viable substitute for Control Points. • The integrated Catalog is, well, integrated.
I have reprocessed most of my library and, on balance, I prefer my LR darkroom PP to the NX2 PP. And I'm still not using all of the LR tools.
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
#3. "RE: NX2 versus LR3 and Nix" In response to Reply # 0 Fri 10-Feb-12 05:11 PM by sirraj
I use NX2 and I am very happy. Version 2.3 is a huge improvement, it is much faster and much more stable. I tried LR and it's not for me. The whole database structure drives me crazy, I prefer to do my own file management. I also don't like the sidecar files that LR creates, more files to keep track of. I like the fact that the NX2 edits are stored right in the NEF file. I found that I could pretty much get the LR output to look like NX2, but it took me a lot longer. I use Photoshop Elements for occasional cloning and other things I can't do in NX2.
#6. "RE: NX2 versus LR3 and Nix" In response to Reply # 0
Hot Springs, US
Well here's my two cents worth. I bought my D7000 about 14 months ago. I researched software for processing the NEF files and believed that Capture NX2 was the only way to go. I am absolutely blown away with what you can do with Control Points. And up until two weeks ago I would have definitely recommended CNX2. Here's what changed my mind.
I decided that I wanted to get more serious about my photography. Therefore I did more research to determine how to equip my digital darkroom so that I could process and print my photos. I bought a Mac Mini, a NEC PA241W monitor with Spectra View II and the NEC colorimeter and a Canon Pixma Pro-1. I had already done a lot of reading about color management and was vey excited about the quality of print that I believed I could produce by controlling the process from cradle to grave.
I calibrated my monitor, decided to use aRGB as my color space inside CNX2 and loaded the ICC profiles for the printer and paper. I brought a photo into CNX2 to check everything out. Everything was great. The soft proof required only minimal tweeks after choosing the printer/paper profile in CNX2. Then I sent the image to the print driver. The image was grossly over-saturated. I mean not even close. I have uploaded a screenshot into my gallery of the problem.
I contacted Canon and of course they blamed CNX2 for the problem. But after some troubleshooting I tended to agree with Canon. Therefore I downloaded a trial version of PhotoShop Elements 10. Performed the process of defining color management parameters. Elements is spot on with the source image colors when printing.
I then contacted Nikon support for CNX2. This has been an abysmal experience. They have had my support ticket for two weeks now with no resolution. And getting answers from them defines an exercise in futility.
I can currently get outstanding prints from CNX2. I process the raw image in CNX2 save as a tiff and then print from the Canon print utility that shipped with the Pro-1. However I can only use Canon paper since the Canon print utility won't allow me to use ICC profiles for other paper and I want to use Ilford paper.
So that's my dilema. Use CNX2, which I love as processing software, and be stuck with Canon paper. Or, switch to another software package that I feel is inferior to CNX2. But really isn't a software product is only as good as its tech support when there is a problem.
So, if you never have a problem with CNX2 it's the best in my opinion for post processing. One other knock against CNX2 vs. LR, is that CNX2 has no real file management functionality compared to LR which has really good cataloguing features. But, to be fair, I personally don't care about that, I just want the best images I can produce. But your decision factors may be different.
Bottom line - great software, terrible tech support.
#7. "RE: NX2 versus LR3 and Nix" In response to Reply # 6
Just as a counterpoint, I can print quickly, easily and correctly using any color profile supplied for any paper and my printers (Epson 3880 and R1900) using CNX2. I found Photoshop to be much harder to set up, even with proper profiling and following the recommended procedures. I never have gotten the prints to match the screen as well as CNX.
Point is: everyone's experience can be different depending on many, many factors about your software and hardware. You won't know until you try it and see how it works for you.
So, my suggestion, if you haven't done it yet, download the trial versions and see what works best for you.