Issues: Nikon Capture vs. NX

[JerryLevin]

Hi all…

A question or two for those of you using Nikon NX to produce TIF from NEF files who previously used Capture. We currently still use the last release of Capture (4.42) to generate 8 bit TIFs, under XP Pro.

1. When you upgraded, did you notice any improvement (or downgrade) in the NEF to TIF performance, all other things being equal?
2. Also, did you notice any significant improvement (or downgrade) in the image quality, and if so, what?

We’re considering the upgrade, but want to know if the conversion will be any faster (hoping so).

Finally, something I don’t quite understand but have guesses for when producing TIFs…

A project we shot two weeks ago in great light, averages about 5 or so NEF to TIFs per minute. No edits were done in Capture. On the other hand a project we shot this weekend, that was dark and gloomy, which did need lightening per file in Capture (no other changes) is averaging only about 1 or 2 conversions a minute. All other conditions are the same (defrag’d disk, all other processes turned off, lots of disk space) and so on.

For the life of me, I can’t find any other reason why the current project is running at least twice as slow (very maddening). The only thing I can guess is the changes we made to the NEFs. And again, the batch of NEFs are all the same in terms of being 100% compressed, etc.

Thanks for your insights!

[David_Buzzard]

They both suck. Try Lightroom if you're on a PC platform.

David Buzzard's Technical Blog

[DierkHaasis]

Capture NX is definitely not for the speed demons out there; not quite sure if LR is faster.

As for the differences in conversion time, Capture is known to take a long time processing Base Adjustments. The big advantage of NX over 4.x is that most of them can be done with other, newer tools; Base Adjustments in NX are in for compatibility. Global and Local Adjustments - once one gets the hang of them - process much faster when saving and converting.

[JerryLevin]

Dave, Dierk -

Thanks for the quick replies.

I ran a simple experiment, and the delta is pretty disgusting (performance-wise) for the TIF creation (all things on the machine being very equal).

200 NEFs, no adjustments whatsoever, all files "virginal" - 40 minutes
200 NEFs, only some files with local adjustments (perhaps 30% touched, the remainder as they were out of the camera), no global changes - 95 minutes.

We are indeed looking for better performance, but also want to be assured that color fidelity, etc. are at least matched by what we like and expect from Capture.

Dave - do you know if LR will show any improvement (perf-wise) over Capture/NX? I realize I'll have to look at the resulting files myself to see if they visually match what we're used to.

Again, thanks!

[DierkHaasis]

Did you do this test with Capture 4.x or with the trial of NX?

[JerryLevin]

This was done with Capture 4.42, running on XP. Current machine has 2 gig, nothing else was running, and all unnecessary processes shut down via Task Mgr.

[DierkHaasis]

OK, I wasn't clear about which version you are currently using. In my experience older versions - that is those before NIK Software took over, and NX v1.1 - are slower than NX when converting and saving. With NX the difference can easily be cecked by once using a Base Adjustment and then [separately!] a Global Adjustment, say, Exposure Correction vs. Brightness/Contrast or Levels. The former takes longer to be processed and saved than the latter, an observation several others (incl. Jason Odell) have made, too.

Unfortunately I cannot wholeheartedly recommend to install the trial of NX since Nikon advises to not have different versions of Capture on one machine [though that might just be a cover-your-ass clause]. If you are adventurous, OTOH ...

PS: Let me clearly state that NX is much better than its rep when it comes to speed. Since v1.1.