Printable View
On another thread (Ian Cassels), I commented about Canon files and ACR vs. DPP images.
Arash commented that Nikon files did not look as good in ACR as Nx2 either, so I Processed the same file
in both systems. Nothing done to either except add the same minimal sharpening in the downsized photo to both.
The ACR is darker, but the sharpness is about the same. An interesting comparison, probably applies to Canon
DPP files vs ACR?
here is the NX2 file
002_2441nx.jpg
Here is the ACR file.
002_2441acr.jpg
Personally, I prefer the color of the ACR file over NX2.
I could lighten it easy and I could make it as sharp (I think it is a tiny bit softer).
I like both software.
Maybe someone could do the same with a Canon file?
Again, these are the same image, Out of Camera NEF Full Frame with no processing other than the minimum minor sharpness that is applied to compressed downsized (1200 X 800), 295KB images.
On my screen both have a green cast but the ACR shows a stronger green cast, the black shows a bit more details in the NX2 but they are not great in either. For sharpness/noise you need to post 100% crop not the small version.
It has been a while I processed a NEF file with NX, that was when I had a D3S 5 years ago... I remember you need to set the correct picture profile, sharpening, noise reduction etc. the default settings are often off
The reds look more saturated on the ACR file.
I always give the nod to the manufacturer's specific raw converter, presuming they have proprietary algorithms to render with greater accuracy.
Nikon's new raw converter is Capture NX-D. You may wish to investigate it, as they no longer support NX2, or so I've been told.
I'm not familiar with the Nikon converters, but ACR/LR has so much control that comparisons of small differences in color or tonality don't mean much, as they can be adjusted with great flexibility and precision. The "Auto" tone settings are often horrible, but the default settings as an image comes into the converter are well within the range for good manipulation, if the initial exposure was decent. The Auto WB setting is often worth a look, but the in-camera setting if often better. Both the Tint and WB are easily adjusted to taste. (These sliders are blue-yellow and green-magenta because you are working in LAB mode behind the scenes.)
The engine is the same for ACR and LR but I find the layout of the adjustments in LR to be much more intuitive and easy to use.
If your worried about accurate color you can always set up a custom profile in ACR for your camera under different lighting condition. ACR does have a color bias with NEF files stronger then CR2 files. When I get a chance I will post a link on how to set them up.
Hi Don,Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lacy
I have tried this in the past, but it is very difficult to get exactly the same colors you get from DPP from ACR directly even if you spent many hours to make a profiles, especially when there are multiple light sources in the scene. This is because when ACR does the de-mosaic calculation, it cannot correct for the non idealities of the CFA on the sensor specific to each camera, in other words it does not have the calibration data. The RGB values are thus contaminated. The necessary correction factor will then depend on the absolute RGB value and is not the same for all pixels. So applying simple color correction (i.e. shifting all the pixels by the same amount) doesn't work. What a profile does is that it tries to correct the main colors independently, however it still not good enough because there are gaps in between.
best
Arash
Thanks did not know that my understanding was profiling corrected the issue. What you are saying is it gets you closer but there is still gaps in the information since it does not have the calibration info for individual pixels that the manufacture used. That's probably an over simplification
Where do the camera calibration profiles in the camera calibration tab fit into this? Aren't they from the manufacturer and specific to the camera model? (As opposed to the default Adobe Standard profile.)
FWIW, I use both, I have never done a direct comparison though until now.
I usually begin in ACR, because It does lens correction, I think it has better highlight reduction and shadow removal also.
I then go to PS and adjust exposure and use A topaz plug in for NR, which I think is the best.
For Landscapes I use PS for the gimmick stuff like focus stacking and exposure blending.
I always finish photos in NX2, because it has better more precise sharpening than PS and also spot fixes are much easier in NX2.
PS is clunky to me for small area enhancements or sharpening.
NX2 also has a much better way to resize photo's for the web and I think has better JPEG conversion.
I haven't tried the new Nikon software, I don't know why they discontinued NX2......
Dan,Quote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
I think it had to do with Nikon losing a license that was critical to NX-2, when Google gobbled up Nik, which created NX-2.
- Bill
Hi Don,Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lacy
Sorry if I could't explain it very well. What I was trying to say was that the amount of correction needed is different for every shade of color. For e.g. when you correct for one shade of green, other pixels that also fall within the "green" spectrum but have a different shade of green, will fall out of place. So in theory you have to apply a different correction amount for every RGB value which makes partially impossible to do.
Another issue with Adobe is the size of grain, if you use DPP the grain is very tight, almost single pixel, especially with full-frame bodies. It doesn't affect feather details as much, with ACR the grain is coarse but uniform. I've heard that Adobe does this intentionally to some degree to make the noise look more like grain from film. while some photographers prefer this look, it's not great for us who care about very fine feather details as removing the coarse noise will smoothen those subtle details.
best
Thanks Arash, interesting about the grain I downloaded the new DPP the other day and have just started playing around with it I
need to get your guide. For my landscape work I need the control over tonalities that ACR has and I am very familiar with its interface. I need to find out if I can replicate my Raw workflow with DPP the new version seems to have the tools I need now it's just figuring out how to use them
The camera profiles are not from the manufacturer, they are from Adobe. AFIK Adobe have no collaboration with big camera companies like Canon or Nikon for camera RAW software development. The camera companies will not share their propitiatory information with Adobe. The camera profiles are just Adobe's independent attempt to reverse engineer the camera's color response. The probably shoot a standard color chart and try to calibrate the profile...Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
Hi Dan, NX-D is freely available from the Nikon website, if you want to give it a go: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...ture-NX-D.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by dankearl
I've downloaded it, but only used it once to reprocess an image for print in a magazine. The result was better than a previous processing of the same image with ACR. It was not the easiest of images to process, being an image of the moon taken with the old Nikon 80-400 @400mm. The improvement appeared mainly due to the sharpening.
