If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CS3 raw update
Just letting people know there is a camera raw update for
CS3 and it is support Nikon D40X files. Now.....since I also have Capture NX - any thoughts on which would be better to use? Louise. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CS3 raw update
As to which would be "better" the answer is clearly Photoshop because it can
do infinitely more than NX. However for what it does NX may work better for you. NX and the Adobe converter work by different paradigms. You can achieve the same image at the end of the process but you get there in different ways. The control points in NX, if used judiciously, allow for manipulation of specific regions in the image in ways that would require use of layers and masks in Adobe. NX also allows for initial use of a level control to lop off dead space at either end of the histogram which, amazingly, is not a straight forward proposition in the Adobe converter. If the control points are over-used they can make the image look un-photographic, kind of like a roto gravure print, or add noise. The multiple controls in the new Adobe converter can wreak similar havoc. I kind of like NX and tend to use it as the initial raw converter and then transfer the image to CS3 for things NX cannot do or for printing. Some images are easier to process with the Adobe converter. Experiment. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CS3 raw update
nsag wrote:
As to which would be "better" the answer is clearly Photoshop because it can do infinitely more than NX. However for what it does NX may work better for you. NX and the Adobe converter work by different paradigms. You can achieve the same image at the end of the process but you get there in different ways. The control points in NX, if used judiciously, allow for manipulation of specific regions in the image in ways that would require use of layers and masks in Adobe. NX also allows for initial use of a level control to lop off dead space at either end of the histogram which, amazingly, is not a straight forward proposition in the Adobe converter. If the control points are over-used they can make the image look un-photographic, kind of like a roto gravure print, or add noise. The multiple controls in the new Adobe converter can wreak similar havoc. I kind of like NX and tend to use it as the initial raw converter and then transfer the image to CS3 for things NX cannot do or for printing. Some images are easier to process with the Adobe converter. Experiment. Thanks - I have been playing around and it is a mixed blessing to have both programs now able to process the raw files. I find myself obsessing about when I should move from NX to PS :-) Meanwhile, could you explain what you mean when you say "NX allows for initial use of a level control to lop off dead space at either end of the histogram". How do you do this and what are the results? I didn't know about it although I could see that different things I did, especially using d-lighting had an effect upon the histogram. BTW, what do you make of d-lighting? I often seem to use it instead of fiddling with shadow/highlight. Louise |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Update to my XD-11 CLA | Colyn | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | October 23rd 05 04:46 AM |
Wega2 1.0.8.5 update and FocalPlot 1.06 (now Exposureplot) update | Paul van Andel | Digital Photography | 3 | October 20th 05 09:58 AM |
web update | tobaritx | Digital Photography | 0 | February 20th 05 02:34 AM |
(Update) | Daniel ROCHA | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 14th 04 10:49 AM |
new update | Ted | Film & Labs | 0 | February 9th 04 07:57 PM |