Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby MASTER YOUR TOOLS - Hardware & Software Digital postprocessing & workflow (Public) topic #63545
View in linear mode

Subject: "NX2 and LR again" Previous topic | Next topic
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 12:30 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"NX2 and LR again"


London, GB
          

I've tried to obtain the same image from these two by equalising the settings as far as possible, yet the results are very noticeably different.

Colour temperature the same
Tint the same
Exposure the same
Camera calibration the same
Colour space the same
All NR and sharpening off.

This seems to suggest that zero points in the two apps are arbitrarily different. Is this so?

(This is only curiosity: I've been happily aware of the difference, selecting the appropriate app for the particular image - but I'd like to know what's going on.)

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
26th Jan 2010
1
Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
2
     Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
26th Jan 2010
3
     Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
4
     Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
b2martin_a
26th Jan 2010
5
     Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
6
          Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
26th Jan 2010
7
               Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
sidewinder Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
8
               Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
26th Jan 2010
12
                    Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
sidewinder Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
13
                         Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
26th Jan 2010
14
                              Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
sidewinder Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
15
                                   Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
16
                                   Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
sidewinder Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
17
               Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
9
                    Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
26th Jan 2010
10
                         Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
26th Jan 2010
11
                              Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Baaker Silver Member
29th Jan 2010
18
                                   Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
12th Feb 2010
21
                                        Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Baaker Silver Member
16th Feb 2010
36
                                        Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
16th Feb 2010
37
     Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
robsb Platinum Member
12th Feb 2010
20
          Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
12th Feb 2010
23
               Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
12th Feb 2010
24
                    Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
recidivist Silver Member
12th Feb 2010
25
                         Reply message RE: NX2 and LR again
Arkayem Moderator
12th Feb 2010
26
     Reply message Backwards, perhaps??
DiploStrat
05th Feb 2010
19
          Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
recidivist Silver Member
12th Feb 2010
22
               Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
DigiG Silver Member
14th Feb 2010
27
                    Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
Arkayem Moderator
14th Feb 2010
28
                         Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
cchoc Moderator
14th Feb 2010
29
                              Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
Arkayem Moderator
14th Feb 2010
30
                                   Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
cchoc Moderator
14th Feb 2010
31
                                   Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
Arkayem Moderator
15th Feb 2010
32
                                        Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
recidivist Silver Member
15th Feb 2010
33
                                        Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
cchoc Moderator
15th Feb 2010
34
                                   Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
pdekman Gold Member
16th Feb 2010
35
                                        Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
PAStime Silver Member
17th Feb 2010
43
                                             Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
pdekman Gold Member
18th Feb 2010
44
                                                  Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
Baaker Silver Member
18th Feb 2010
45
                                                  Reply message RE: Backwards, perhaps??
PAStime Silver Member
18th Feb 2010
48
Reply message Nikon's Secret Sauce
DiploStrat
17th Feb 2010
38
Reply message RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce
recidivist Silver Member
17th Feb 2010
39
     Reply message RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce
Arkayem Moderator
17th Feb 2010
40
     Reply message RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce
DiploStrat
17th Feb 2010
41
          Reply message RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce
recidivist Silver Member
17th Feb 2010
42
          Reply message RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce
Freewheeler10
18th Feb 2010
46
               Reply message RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce
recidivist Silver Member
18th Feb 2010
47

Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberTue 26-Jan-10 01:46 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>I've tried to obtain the same image from these two by
>equalising the settings as far as possible, yet the results
>are very noticeably different.
>
>Colour temperature the same
>Tint the same
>Exposure the same
>Camera calibration the same
>Colour space the same
>All NR and sharpening off.
>
>This seems to suggest that zero points in the two apps are
>arbitrarily different. Is this so?
>
>(This is only curiosity: I've been happily aware of the
>difference, selecting the appropriate app for the particular
>image - but I'd like to know what's going on.)

In LR, you need to use the Camera Standard preset to make it match the camera.

Setting the controls all the same will not get the same results, because there's no way to set the tone curve right in LR unless you know exactly what the tone 0 settings are in the camera. Tone at 0 in the camera is not the same thing as tone curve linear in LR.

The same applies for Saturation and Clarity and sharpening. The zeros are not the same as the defaults in the camera.

The LR engineers have adjusted the Camera Standard Preset to match all the camera defaults as closely as possible. It's still not perfect, but it is close.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 01:56 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 1


London, GB
          

Yes, I have applied the camera standard preset. And thank you for answering the zero question. There are times when I want to see something as close to the original pixels as possible, and it can be frustrating when it's not possible to find anything else to switch off. That's when I go back to NX - I trust it to give me the flattest possible starting point.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberTue 26-Jan-10 02:39 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 2


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>Yes, I have applied the camera standard preset. And thank you
>for answering the zero question. There are times when I want
>to see something as close to the original pixels as possible,
>and it can be frustrating when it's not possible to find
>anything else to switch off. That's when I go back to NX - I
>trust it to give me the flattest possible starting point.

When working with raw images, the original pixels are never changed no matter what you do, so the starting point is completely arbitrary.

Consequently, I consider the LR Camera Standard Preset as the 'flattest' possible starting point.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 03:37 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 3


London, GB
          

The pixels aren't changed under the bonnet, but, as you've pointed out, they are by the time we see them. It's the relationships between the pixels that make the image and, the closer the out-of-camera file is to the image I wanted, the more I want to see the unadorned pixels.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
b2martin_a Registered since 10th Jan 2007Tue 26-Jan-10 03:51 PM
475 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 3


US
          

I use Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) in Photoshop CS4 to process NEF files. I selected 45 NEF files from two years of images and processed them using Capture NX2 with all camera settings at nominal, and with ACR with all settings at their normal values for each picture control profile (8 camera profiles total for each image). I used the "as shot" white balance for all images. I renamed the images so the NX and ACR version of the same image we next to each other in the folder - one folder for each camera profile. I then viewed the images in a slide show, which allowed me to see the differences in the NX vs the ACR processed images when the slide show switched from NX to ACR processed image. You have to look very close to see a difference in most images. I think Adobe did an excellent job creating the camera profiles.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 04:01 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 5


London, GB
          

I'm looking at some images of small waterfalls at the moment, captured so that the individual droplets which escape the main body have just enough time to register a short amount of their path. Because of their internal reflections they become lines of pure white (or blow-out). When looked at at 400% the LR versions have clearly-visible blue and red fringing, while the NX2 versions do not show this. Although this actual difference isn't visible at normal resolution, there is some subtle but indefinable perceptual difference, presumably brought on by this factor amongst others. I'm curious to know whether NX is removing the fringing or whether LR is adding it.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberTue 26-Jan-10 05:20 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 6


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>I'm looking at some images of small waterfalls at the moment,
>captured so that the individual droplets which escape the main
>body have just enough time to register a short amount of their
>path. Because of their internal reflections they become lines
>of pure white (or blow-out). When looked at at 400% the LR
>versions have clearly-visible blue and red fringing, while the
>NX2 versions do not show this. Although this actual difference
>isn't visible at normal resolution, there is some subtle but
>indefinable perceptual difference, presumably brought on by
>this factor amongst others. I'm curious to know whether NX is
>removing the fringing or whether LR is adding it.

I don't know (I've never seen this), but it could be light refraction into a spectrum that is being resolved by the LR ACR raw decoder and not by the Nikon raw decoder.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
sidewinder Silver Member Nikonian since 05th Jan 2010Tue 26-Jan-10 05:32 PM
737 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 7


US
          

>I don't know (I've never seen this), but it could be light
>refraction into a spectrum that is being resolved by the LR
>ACR raw decoder and not by the Nikon raw decoder.

Russ,

Oh sure. LR ACR is seeing more detail than Capture NX 2 using Nikon's own RAW decoder.

We all know you love Adobe products by now. But lets not go overboard on it, okay?

Scott

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberTue 26-Jan-10 06:24 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 8


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>Oh sure. LR ACR is seeing more detail than Capture NX 2 using
>Nikon's own RAW decoder.
>
>We all know you love Adobe products by now. But lets not go
>overboard on it, okay?

Thank you very much for that very thoughtful post, Scott.

You added an enormous amount to this thread.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
sidewinder Silver Member Nikonian since 05th Jan 2010Tue 26-Jan-10 07:54 PM
737 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 12
Tue 26-Jan-10 07:54 PM by sidewinder

US
          

Russ,

Your sarcasm is quite appreciated!

By the way, is it possible that Capture NX 2 is applying some aberration correction that has not been turned off in the "Camera and Lens Corrections" section of the "Quick Fix"?

Scott

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberTue 26-Jan-10 09:15 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 13


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>is it possible that Capture NX 2 is applying some
>aberration correction that has not been turned off in the
>"Camera and Lens Corrections" section of the
>"Quick Fix"?
>Scott

That's a possibility, but the OP said he had zeroed out everything.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
sidewinder Silver Member Nikonian since 05th Jan 2010Tue 26-Jan-10 09:41 PM
737 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 14


US
          

Except that "aberration correction" was not in the list of things he said he turned off.

Nick, did your turn off the "Camera and Lens Corrections" section in the "Quick Fix" area?

Scott

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 10:52 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 15


London, GB
          

Yes.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
sidewinder Silver Member Nikonian since 05th Jan 2010Tue 26-Jan-10 10:56 PM
737 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 16


US
          

Nick,

Based on that, I would suggest that this is an example of Capture NX 2 doing a better job of decoding the Nikon RAW file than Lightroom 2 with ACR.

Scott

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 05:35 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 7


London, GB
          

I was wondering about that -how could it be that a general-purpose decoder does a better job than one which has more original data to work with?

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberTue 26-Jan-10 05:57 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 9
Tue 26-Jan-10 06:10 PM by Arkayem

Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>I was wondering about that -how could it be that a
>general-purpose decoder does a better job than one which has
>more original data to work with?

I don't know. I've always believed the Nikon raw decoder to be the best there is, and I've never had any reason to doubt that. I've always used ACR with the idea that it was very very close but not quite as good as the Nikon decoder.

It would be interesting to use another 3rd party decoder on the same image and see if the color aberrations are there with it.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 26-Jan-10 06:02 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 10


London, GB
          

>It would be interesting to use another 3rd party decoder on
>the same image and see if the color aberrations are there with
>it.
Unfortunately, I've only got those two on this machine - excepting iPhoto. When I get the opportunity, I'll try it with another one.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009Fri 29-Jan-10 12:58 PM
923 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 11


Dumbarton, GB
          

It is well known that Nikon will do a better job of rendering their files. After all it is their product. The bottom line is does it matter whether there is a difference? This pixel peeping is futile. Zeroing into 400% is simply taking things too far. Choose which you prefer as to rendering and be happy!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Fri 12-Feb-10 07:46 AM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 18


London, GB
          

(I've been away, so am only just returning to this)

Yes, it does matter if there's a difference. Not because one is right and one is wrong, but because I'm looking for a particular result, and it would appear that the two apps are approaching my pixels from a different direction. If you really think that going into 400% is futile, then you don't have the same interest in your material that I do.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009Tue 16-Feb-10 10:45 AM
923 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 21


Dumbarton, GB
          

>(I've been away, so am only just returning to this)
>
>Yes, it does matter if there's a difference. Not because one
>is right and one is wrong, but because I'm looking for a
>particular result, and it would appear that the two apps are
>approaching my pixels from a different direction. If you
>really think that going into 400% is futile, then you don't
>have the same interest in your material that I do.
>
>

If I was to follow your logic then if I zoomed into 500% then I would have more interest in my material? Sorry that is a silly assumption. I have the two converters and personally I am glad that they are different. Overall this is a situation that you are - imo - fussing too much about? To prove the point take a raw image and process it with whatever converter you wish and save the image. A week later start from scratch and process the same raw image with the same converter and save once again. Compare the two and you will see a difference? BTW do you view your images at 400% after you have finished editing them or do you do what others do and view at arm's length. I think you are guilty of pixel peeping.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Tue 16-Feb-10 06:26 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 36


London, GB
          

If you're not interested in why your images are the way they are, then that's fine for for you. I am interested. It's no reason to start petty name-calling. I thought these forums were a little more grown-up than that.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
robsb Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his expertise in CNX2 and his always amicable and continuous efforts to help members Laureate Ribbon awarded for winning in the Best of Nikonians 2013 images Photo Contest Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Fri 12-Feb-10 01:49 AM
12588 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#20. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 3


San Jose, US
          

Russ that depends. If you set ADL on a Nikon Camera to on it changes the RAW file in a way that only NX2 can process it properly.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberFri 12-Feb-10 01:35 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 20


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>Russ that depends. If you set ADL on a Nikon Camera to on it
>changes the RAW file in a way that only NX2 can process it
>properly.

I realize that ADL makes changes to the raw pixels, but I thought that the ADL processing was done as the pixels came off the sensor, and the change was 'baked into' the raw image, so that even if you use NX2, you can't undo that.

There is also a post processing version of ADL that NX2 can add or subtract.

I know that I see the camera ADL effect correctly in my raw images when I edit them in LR and CS3. ADL basically actively controls the exposure by adjusting the ISO gain circuits during the exposure to reduce the gain for high amplitude spikes. I really didn't think there was any way to undo this in NX2, because the original raw pixels are changed, and I didn't think the amount of the change and which pixels were changed was recorded.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberFri 12-Feb-10 01:40 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 23


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

I forgot to mention one more thing that can be done in the camera that affects the raw image that I don't think NX2 can undo; Long Exposure Noise Reduction. Again, this is applied to the raw data, and I don't think there is any record of the changes made, so there is no way that NX2 can remove the effect.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Fri 12-Feb-10 02:17 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 24


London, GB
          

I don't think I've ever exposed a frame which had LENR applied to it and wished to remove the changes. I tend to think of it as negation rather than reduction.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberFri 12-Feb-10 02:22 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: NX2 and LR again"
In response to Reply # 25


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>I don't think I've ever exposed a frame which had LENR
>applied to it and wished to remove the changes. I tend to
>think of it as negation rather than reduction.

Exactly how I see it (and I guess how the Nikon engineers see it, as well)!

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
DiploStrat Registered since 06th Dec 2006Fri 05-Feb-10 03:09 PM
473 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 2


Bangui, CF
          

>There are times when I want
>to see something as close to the original pixels as possible,
>That's when I go back to NX - I
>trust it to give me the flattest possible starting point.

I think that some of us would argue that CNX does NOT give the flattest possible starting point, but rather the most "Nikon" starting point. To my eye, at least, Nikon pushes blue/yellow pastels while Canon, for example, runs to metallic magenta tones. Neither is wrong, it is just that these tend to be the defaults.

Using Lightroom, or in my case, Aperture, you have to so some work to match Nikon's "secret sauce."

But if Capture NX is better to your eye, then don't sweat it; use it.

--
DiploStrat

Visit my gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Fri 12-Feb-10 07:50 AM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 19


London, GB
          

As I said in the original post, this is only curiosity: I've been happily aware of the difference, selecting the appropriate app for the particular image - but I'd like to know what's going on. I'll be working on the images today, so will examine this fringing/no fringing issue a little further. Any progress, and I'll report back.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
DigiG Silver Member Nikonian since 13th May 2007Sun 14-Feb-10 08:36 PM
360 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 22


Shenzhen (Expat, UK), CN
          

So, reading this thread prompts the question about general workflow.

I have Cap NX, CS4 and LR. I use LR for library etc and edit in CS4 from with LR as and when needed.

However, am I better doing my initial opening of NEF files in Cap NX, doing my basic editing and then saving as ?which file?? to import them into LR and then edit in CS4 for any tools that LR and CAPNX don't have?




Many Thanks

Graeme

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberSun 14-Feb-10 09:02 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 27
Sun 14-Feb-10 09:29 PM by Arkayem

Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>I have Cap NX, CS4 and LR. I use LR for library etc and edit
>in CS4 from with LR as and when needed.

I do the same. I like to edit non-destructively as much as possible, so I have never found an efficient way to use NX in my flow. I wish Nikon and Adobe would handle the edit list the same, so the edited NEFs would be usable in both software packages, but they don't. Nikon stores the edits in the same file with the original raw image and Adobe stores the edits in a separate file called a 'sidecar'.

>However, am I better doing my initial opening of NEF files in
>Cap NX, doing my basic editing and then saving as ?

Some people feel that NX does a superior job with the raw conversion and other people just like having all the processing settings on the camera applied to the raw image they are editing. Personally, I would like both of these things, but I need the throughput and efficiency of LR for processing 1000s of images at a time even more.

>which file?? to import them into LR and then edit in CS4 for any
>tools that LR and CAPNX don't have?

If you do your initial edits in NX, then jpeg and tiff are the only formats that you can use for further editing in other programs. You should probably use tiff rather than jpeg for further editing, because I think tiff degrades less with additional edits than jpeg.

Of course, tiff files are usually much larger than jpegs.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
cchoc Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge and high level skills in various areas, most notably in Landscape Photography Charter MemberSun 14-Feb-10 10:04 PM
4517 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#29. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 28


Marietta, US
          

> because I think tiff degrades less with additional edits than jpeg.

TIFF files are not compressed by default, so they do not degrade at all with subsequent edits. Most programs support LZW compression for TIFF's, and that is lossless, so no degradation of compressed TIFF's either.

Charlie...
www.chocphoto.com

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." - Will Rogers

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberSun 14-Feb-10 11:36 PM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 29


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>> because I think tiff degrades less with additional edits
>than jpeg.
>
>TIFF files are not compressed by default, so they do not
>degrade at all with subsequent edits. Most programs support
>LZW compression for TIFF's, and that is lossless, so no
>degradation of compressed TIFF's either.

You probably know more about tiffs than I do so educate me here, will you?

I thought that even though tiffs do not compress when you save, when you make edits, the edits do change pixels, and if you make successive edits, saving after each one, it will eventually cause a reduction in quality.

Also, is there any way to fully remove your edits on a tiff after you have saved it?

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
cchoc Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge and high level skills in various areas, most notably in Landscape Photography Charter MemberSun 14-Feb-10 11:52 PM
4517 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#31. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 30


Marietta, US
          

Edits change pixels, but lossy compression like on jpegs drops pixels. The dropped pixels are where the quality loss in jpegs comes from, not the edits. The quality on TIFF's doesn't change when saving since there is either no compression or lossless compression. The key difference is the lossy vs lossless compression.

When you save a TIFF in CS4 or NX2 your edits become a permanent part of the file, so there is no going back. When you make changes in LR, however, you don't actually save the TIFF's but the deltas cause by your edits are saved. LR edits are non-destructive regardless of file format (TIFF, jpeg, raw). If you want a TIFF or jpeg file with your changes incorporated you need to export it from LR into another file.

Charlie...
www.chocphoto.com

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." - Will Rogers

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberMon 15-Feb-10 01:25 AM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 31


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>Edits change pixels, but lossy compression like on jpegs
>drops pixels. The dropped pixels are where the quality loss in
>jpegs comes from, not the edits.

And I think that when the jpeg is rendered pixels are added back in, and sometimes that forms artifacts.

If you were to edit a tiff; let's say brighten it a stop and save it and re-edit it and darken it a stop and save it. Then do that sequence four or five times, the image would be totally ruined. That's what I mean by destructive editing. Plus there would be no way to remove it. If you do that same brightening and darkening on a raw image (or a jpeg or tiff in LR) you will cause no damage to the original image, and you can always go back to the original image any time you want to.

>The quality on TIFF's doesn't
>change when saving since there is either no compression or
>lossless compression. The key difference is the lossy vs
>lossless compression.

I understand that tiffs can be saved without compression while jpegs always are compressed when saved. However, the first time you save a raw image to a jpeg, that is only a single compression step, and if the minimum compression is used, the image is virtually indistinguishable from a tiff at all magnifications.

>When you save a TIFF in CS4 or NX2 your edits become a
>permanent part of the file, so there is no going back. When
>you make changes in LR, however, you don't actually save the
>TIFF's but the deltas cause by your edits are saved. LR edits
>are non-destructive regardless of file format (TIFF, jpeg,
>raw). If you want a TIFF or jpeg file with your changes
>incorporated you need to export it from LR into another file.

Agreed. This is what I meant by destructive editing method used on a tiff in photoshop versus the nondestructive editing used in LR.

Thanks for your comments. It verified that I did understand after all.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Mon 15-Feb-10 07:46 AM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 32


London, GB
          

However: whether LR or NX, your original NEF file will always exist in its original form. Both apps edit non-destructively at that stage. So, with a problem file (that is, one for which you have difficulty deciding which app to use) it's sometimes easier to reach an endpoint by processing in both streams. There's nothing lost by having two versions of the file open in a tabbed PS window and swapping between the two to make direct comparison.

Making two TIFs from NX or LR is one way of making the sort of HDR image that serves a purpose rather than looking 'orrible.

As for using JPEGs to edit, it seems like a complete no-no to me. Apart from anything else, you're in 8bit, and any changes are liable to start showing distinct breaks between pixels.

The main point is that there may be no going back with that version if you edit a TIF in PS, but you can go back to the original NEF as often as you like. I've found many files from a few years ago which respond beautifully to subsequent improvements in software.

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
cchoc Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge and high level skills in various areas, most notably in Landscape Photography Charter MemberMon 15-Feb-10 11:47 AM
4517 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#34. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 32


Marietta, US
          

Just to clarify, I guess it's a question of what the word 'degrades' means in the context of photo editing. You said a tiff degrades less than a jpeg when edited and saved, while I would say that both are changed by editing but only the jpeg degrades (loses quality) when saved. The reason files don't degrade in LR is that the files themselves are never saved, just the changes to the files, while in CS4 the files themselves are saved so the jpeg degrades over time and the tiff does not.

Certainly poor editing choices can damage an image, but that is due to the person doing the edits and not the format of the file. No matter how carefully you edit a jpeg, multiple saves will cause a loss in quality that would not happen if the file were a tiff. That's the way I interpret the word degrade in this context.

Charlie...
www.chocphoto.com

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." - Will Rogers

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
pdekman Gold Member Winner in The Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded as a regular contributor who offers in-depth knowledge to members who are interested in building efficient work flows. Nikonian since 17th Nov 2005Tue 16-Feb-10 12:20 AM
1032 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 30


Swisher, US
          

I would summarize as follows:

1) Non-destructive paradigm: Saves the original file and a set of editing steps to be applied to the original file. Post process as many times as you wish without loss of the original data, and all editing steps are applied with initial precision.

2) Use 16-bit TIFF files: Editing will alter the file data and further processing becomes irreversable within the precision limits of 16-bit computations. Saving the file does not harm any data.

3) Use 8-bit JPEG files: Similar to TIFF regarding file data except 8-bit precision math leads to banding/rounding errors much more quickly. Also, each save event forces lossy compression to be applied which further creates artifacts that did not exist in the original file.

Paul
My Nikonians Gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Wed 17-Feb-10 10:42 PM
2669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 35


Kingston, CA
          

pdekman: your definitions make sense to me.

To add a twist to this useful thread, consider this too: one can open a JPEG in Capture NX2, make changes, and then save it as a NEF. Subsequent edits can be made on that NEF in NX2. All of these edits will be reversible and be non-lossy every time the data is saved.

Cheers,
Peter

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
pdekman Gold Member Winner in The Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded as a regular contributor who offers in-depth knowledge to members who are interested in building efficient work flows. Nikonian since 17th Nov 2005Thu 18-Feb-10 03:49 AM
1032 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#44. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 43


Swisher, US
          

Peter -

You are correct. Be aware though that the saved NEF file is simply hosting the JPG rasterized image - it has not been converted to RAW data because of the save to the NEF file format. (As photographers, we are not specific with our terms and many times correlate NEF with RAW exclusively.)

Only the original capture from the camera, shot in RAW format, will generate the bayer arrayed sensor information that we consider 'raw' data. As such, this example is really just another case of #1 in my explanation. A non-destructive workflow applied to a JPG original.

Does that make sense?




Paul
My Nikonians Gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009Thu 18-Feb-10 01:40 PM
923 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#45. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 44


Dumbarton, GB
          

I think it's been a very good thread. It is interesting to learn of the strong opinions that people hold on this topic. I had always thought that the method of nef conversion is basically identical between Nikon and Adobe software. I was surprised to read all the comments saying it isn't.

Unquote

It looks as if the OP wasn't after answers? Stating his opinion and then disregarding any post that came after it believing that he was the only one who was correct? This topic will never have a definitive answer because there isn't one.....only opinions?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Thu 18-Feb-10 10:46 PM
2669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#48. "RE: Backwards, perhaps??"
In response to Reply # 44


Kingston, CA
          

Yes, that makes perfect sense. The NEF will house that JPEG. But it will not give most of the advantages of shooting raw. Cheers, Peter

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

DiploStrat Registered since 06th Dec 2006Wed 17-Feb-10 08:23 AM
473 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed 17-Feb-10 08:50 AM by DiploStrat

Bangui, CF
          

>This seems to suggest that zero points in the two apps are
>arbitrarily different. Is this so?
>
>(This is only curiosity: I've been happily aware of the
>difference, selecting the appropriate app for the particular
>image - but I'd like to know what's going on.)

Absolutely. Note, for example that many Sony and Nikon cameras shre the same Sony sensor, but few have suggested that the RAW files are similar.

While demosaicing may be fairly easy to get right, color is a big issue. I haven't played with CNX in a long time, much of the easy difference is contrast, saturation, noise reduction, etc. But not all of it. See the following link: http://photo.rwboyer.com/2010/02/16/aperture-3-nikon-nef-files/

Bottom line - if you really want the "Nikon Look" you may have to use CNX.

--
DiploStrat

Visit my gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Wed 17-Feb-10 08:39 AM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 38


London, GB
          

RB's rant is the same reason I never got very far with Aperture. I'm happily aware that there's going to be some degree of arbitrariness in NEF conversion, but Aperture just gets it plain wrong, always has - sorry to see Mk 3 still does.

As for the "Nikon look"...it's "my look" I'm after and I find both NX2 and LR can do that for me - just depends on file. I started this thread out of curiosity - it was never meant to be combat zone!

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Arkayem Moderator Awarded for his high level skills in flash photography Charter MemberWed 17-Feb-10 11:43 AM
5986 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#40. "RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 39


Richmond Hill, GA (Savannah), US
          

>As for the "Nikon look"...it's "my look"
>I'm after and I find both NX2 and LR can do that for me - just
>depends on file. I started this thread out of curiosity - it
>was never meant to be combat zone!

I think it's been a very good thread. It is interesting to learn of the strong opinions that people hold on this topic. I had always thought that the method of nef conversion is basically identical between Nikon and Adobe software. I was surprised to read all the comments saying it isn't.

Russ
Nikonian Team Member
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
DiploStrat Registered since 06th Dec 2006Wed 17-Feb-10 04:20 PM
473 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 39


Bangui, CF
          

>RB's rant is the same reason I never got very far with
>Aperture. I'm happily aware that there's going to be some
>degree of arbitrariness in NEF conversion, but Aperture just
>gets it plain wrong, always has - sorry to see Mk 3 still
>does.
>
Funny, I have never found AP to be "wrong" and after playing with LR3b and finding it "worse" I went running back to AP2. I find AP3 to be just wonderful; faster, more powerful, etc. but the new RAW engine has looked about the same to me. Guess I'm just blind.

I may shoot a string of RAW+JPEG so that I have some true Nikon images to compare with. Will see if that makes me change my mind.

However, none of this should be a combat zone. I can't even tell Nikon images from Canon images, let alone one RAW developer from another. And many posts to the contrary, I doubt many others really can, either. It is either a good image or it isn't.

--
DiploStrat

Visit my gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Wed 17-Feb-10 05:00 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 41
Wed 17-Feb-10 05:01 PM by recidivist

London, GB
          

It is either a good
>image or it isn't

Too right, mate...

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Freewheeler10 Registered since 17th Apr 2008Thu 18-Feb-10 02:42 PM
1105 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 41


Englewood, US
          

>Funny, I have never found AP to be "wrong" and after
>playing with LR3b and finding it "worse" I went
>running back to AP2. I find AP3 to be just wonderful; faster,
>more powerful, etc. but the new RAW engine has looked about
>the same to me. Guess I'm just blind.
>
>I may shoot a string of RAW+JPEG so that I have some true
>Nikon images to compare with. Will see if that makes me change
>my mind.
>
>However, none of this should be a combat zone. I can't even
>tell Nikon images from Canon images, let alone one RAW
>developer from another. And many posts to the contrary, I
>doubt many others really can, either. It is either a good
>image or it isn't.

I am also having great luck with Aperture3. The new NEF conversion is very
good, and it cleans up my old Aperture2 images very well.


"If I didn't have my camera to remind me constantly, I am here to do this,
I would eventually have slipped away, I think. I would have forgotten my
reason to exist."
__Annie Leibovitz


http://gallery.me.com/freewheeler
http://freewheeler10.blogspot.com/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
recidivist Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2005Thu 18-Feb-10 08:03 PM
376 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#47. "RE: Nikon's Secret Sauce"
In response to Reply # 46


London, GB
          

Pleased to hear it. Glad I'm wrong...

Nick

Detail stolen from reality

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby MASTER YOUR TOOLS - Hardware & Software Digital postprocessing & workflow (Public) topic #63545 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.