A Lightroom preset for Nikon D300 for the "Capture NX" look.

[ATJ]

I haven't tried these yet, but the guy has tried to get as close as possible to the look of a CaptureNX conversion.

http://www.onethirdstop.com/newsitems/6

[gstark]

What, exactly, is the "Capture NX" look?

Like, seriously? Wouldn't the look of any image depend upon (a) the image and (b) any settings imposed upon it, regardless of the tools used?

Not wanting to disrespect you, but should we move this thread into the humour section?

[ATJ]

Gary,

The idea is to apply similar processing to the image as to what you get with default processing in CaptureNX.

Laugh all you like but some presets I have tried so far actually do give me something quite close to what I would get if I ran the NEF through CaptureNX. How do I know? Well, I have been using raw+JPEG for some time now and I have found that when opened in CaptureNX the raw file and the JPEG look identical. If I load the same files into Lightroom (and apply no processing) they look completely different (the JPEG image looks the same in both CaptureNX and Lightroom, but the raw image looks like crap). Apply the preset to the raw image and in many cases it looks almost identical to the JPEG. This is exactly what this preset is trying to achieve.

[DVEous]

... Obsolete ...

[DVEous]

... Obsolete ...

[gstark]

It takes 5 minutes on the Adobe Forums to discover that the Adobe software engineers themselves admit to the fact that ACR cannot render a NEF properly.

Which suggests a problem with Adobe's software, right?

Have you tried Capture NX?

Yes. I use it. it's designed to work with Nikon cameras,a nd with Nikon images.

Like Nikkor lenses, it's probably the most suitable choice for use with Nikon bodies. It may not do everything that Adobe's products do, but I think that Adobe's products are way too complicated. Not just Adobe's products, btw.

Have your sat down and compared the results against the real world items you have just photographed?

I am basically happy with the results I get through Capture. Further: I spend my working days at a computer; that's more than enough time, each day, at a keyboard and screen. I like to have a simplified workflow, and with respect, even Lightroom doesn't provide me with as simple a way of getting from a Nikon RAW file to my completed product.

This is not subjective.
It's whether the image is an accurate representation, or not.

Accurate representation of ..... what?

What you're saying here is not necessarily correct. The result that you want may, or may not, be an accurate representation of, for instance, what you've seen. Doesn't it really depend upon the outcome that you're trying to achieve? And that may, or may not, be an accurate representation of ... again ... what? What you are seeing?

We all know that we can get any number of photographers to photograph the same scene, and they will each come away with something that is very different from what each of the others have procudced. So, which is the accurate representation?

just don't take the piss out of those of us who think Lightroom has it's limitation, bordering on being an absolute pile of shit catering for the big dollar mass market of lazy arses who want an all-in-one "convenient" workflow.

So, if it's a - your words - pile of shit, why use it?

I have it, and I use it sparingly; I prefer Capture. Actually, I prefer Capture 4.x, believe it or not: there are a couple of very simple and quick workflows that it has, and I miss those.

And again, coming back to the original post: I still have an issue with a one-size-fits-all preset. I shoot under a variety of conditions, using a variety of different techniques, and to achieve a variety of different outcomes. Given all of the variables: wb, contrast settings, EV adjustments, NR, DLighting, etc etc etc, I find it difficult to accept that there's any sort of panacea out there. Moreover, perhaps we're talking something that's akin to comparing the local minilab style of processing to the sort of results that a custom lab would produce using the same negative.

Getting back to what you said a little earlier: which of those two would be the accurate representation? And of what?

More importantly: does that matter? What's more important: the accurate representation (again, of what?) or the desired outcome?

I would contend that unless you're shooting forensically, the accurate representation, whatever that might mean, assumes lesser import.

But that is all OT in this thread.

As I said, I truly don't understand the concept of a one-size-fits-all preset, and I truly don't understand the concept of any sort of "default" processing for any image. I have no concept whatsoever of a "Capture NX" look, because, depending on my in-camera image settings, I might be after a "Velvia" look, or a Tri-X look, or some other sort of look, but never would that be defined by any sort of processing engine.

I can understand ATJ's statements about wanting to get the RAW in both tools looking to be the same, but again, we're talking about a failing in Lightroom, and again, I have difficulty seeing that a one-size-fits-all preset will do that for every possible type of image that I may produce.

As I initially said: no disrespect intended, but I just don't get it.

[gstark]

ATJ, give up ol boy.
As you probably remember, I went to the effort of purchasing a GreTag McBeth color checker, calibrating my own workflow, and it still didn't come close.
Given tolerances in manufacturing, I can't see how using somebody else's preset will yield a satisfactory result for your camera.

Despite the clunky nature of it, Capture NX2 is still the closest thing to sliced bread.

What am I missing here? You get pissed with me (in your previous post) because I'm saying exactly what you are saying?

[DVEous]

... Obsolete ...

[DVEous]

... Obsolete ...

[ATJ]

I can understand ATJ's statements about wanting to get the RAW in both tools looking to be the same, but again, we're talking about a failing in Lightroom, and again, I have difficulty seeing that a one-size-fits-all preset will do that for every possible type of image that I may produce.

As I initially said: no disrespect intended, but I just don't get it.

It doesn't get every possible type of image right, but it does work the majority of the time. The preset I have been using for the last 4 months gets close enough to the JPEG that I have a hard time telling them apart and the differences (in most cases) are so minor not to worry about. I also set up my camera so that the JPEG is the way I want it.

While I much prefer the results from using CaptureNX to convert the raw files, my workflow (when using CaptureNX) was woefully complicated (to do the things I want to do), slow (CaptureNX is a memory hog) and a real pain. With Lightroom I can knock out my images extremely quickly, much quicker than my old workflow.

For me, there is nothing to get. Lightroom works better (overall) for me than CaptureNX (and the other tools I had to use to get the job done). And when I hit an image that the "one-size-fits-all" preset doesn't convert well, I click a button and I can convert it in CaptureNX.

I'm not expecting everyone to get the same value from Lightroom, but I do know other members that use it and I figured that they may appreciate knowing about a preset. If you think Lightroom is crap or don't use it, why judge others that find it of value?

[gstark]

When I look at a picture of something, whether it be on a PC screen, or a print, I'd prefer it to look as close as possible to the "real thing".
Again, this is not subjective.
Why is this so hard to understand?

If that's your desired outcome, then fine.

But let's for a moment look at Dan's (Cre8tivePixel's) work - as one quick example only - and we can see that he is very satisfied with the outcomes he's getting.

Do they look anything like "the real thing" that he was shooting? I'm not so sure that they do.

We all know that we can get any number of photographers to photograph the same scene, and they will each come away with something that is very different from what each of the others have procudced. So, which is the accurate representation?

See above.

But one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

So, if it's a - your words - pile of shit, why use it?

I don't. I gave up using Lightroom a few months ago.
Unfortunately I lost a few clients before I realised how bad it was, and how inaccurate the renders were.
I incorrectly assumed, like a lot of others, it was the bees knees.

There ya go.

As I initially said: no disrespect intended, but I just don't get it.

Perhaps that makes two of us?

So it would seem.

What am I missing here? You get pissed with me (in your previous post) because I'm saying exactly what you are saying?

What the hell are we arguing about then? !!!

I'm not the one arguing.

[gstark]

If you think Lightroom is crap or don't use it, why judge others that find it of value?

I'm not judging others. I'm trying to understand how this preset can be of any real use.

Limited use, within a certain condition set, which you have in place; yes I can see that. But as a general tool, and to describe it as a Capture NX preset - which, for me, suggests that it's going to replace or emulate everything that NX can do - seems a bit of a nonsense.

And yes, I can understand and accept that you will prefer Lightroom's workflow to that of NX. That's not at issue here. I just think that, as when you want a Mercedes, then you wouldn't buy a Holden, then surely, if you want NX results, you shouldn't be using Adobe.

[DVEous]

... Obsolete ...

[stubbsy]

Getting back on topic. I have used Nikon Capture (including it's latest NX incarnation), Photoshop and Lightroom. And by used I don't mean played around with a for a few hours. For me Capture NX is the worst of the three since it just doesn't fit my workflow. None of these 3 products is perfect, but from that imperfect bunch Lightroom is far and away the best and fastest solution to getting my out of camera shots looking how I want them to look. As I said it's imperfect so the goal of the presets which are the original subject of this post is to get the out of camera shot best rendering the colours, brightness, contrast etc of the original scene as you recall it. Now the one thing Capture NX does really really well is just that - render the image well, and for me that's where NX starts and ends - it's the one thing I think it does better than the other two products. And it's the one thing out of the box lightroom doesn't so when Andrew says the preset gets "as close as possible to the look of a CaptureNX conversion" then that makes lots of sense to me.

As for comments on the preset itself I've been using a slightly tweaked version of the preset ever since I got my D300 and find it exceptionally good at getting my image rendered how I want it to be straight after import. That in turn overcomes Lightroom's biggest weakness (it's built in ACR default conversion sucks) and cements the utility of Lightroom as the centrepiece of my workflow. I think it's an exciting product and when version 2 comes out of beta in the next few months the new features will make it an even more useful product. With Lightroom I'm finding my start to finish time on culling and processing the shots I take has reduced dramatically over what I was able to achieve previously. At the end of the day that means I have even more time for other things like taking more photos.

[chrisk]

For me Capture NX is the worst of the three since it just doesn't fit my workflow. None of these 3 products is perfect, but from that imperfect bunch Lightroom is far and away the best and fastest solution to getting my out of camera shots looking how I want them to look.

and therein lies the rub...for ME...ie: we have choices and pick the one that suits us best.
for me, i get the best results fastest in NX2. i find the workflow easy to use and logical. i have all 3 btw but have since ditched LR cos i personally find it takes too long to get what i want and even when i do get something close to what i want, i can get NX to do a better job. again, thats just me.

[stubbsy]

and therein lies the rub...for ME...ie: we have choices and pick the one that suits us best

Exactly

[Alex]

Personally I have been using PS and Capture but for totally different things.

Capture NX (and previously Nikon Capture), I think, is the best raw converter for me. I use it just for that - raw conversion. I make some raw adjustments (WB, exposure), if any, and then send it to PS CS2 for any other editing, including cropping. That's just what I am comfortable with. I know I'm not using Capture NX to its full ability but that's fine, I use it what I find it works best at.

Cheers
Alex