Raw Conversion

[Michael Bailey]

I think I already know the answer to this, but I'll be happy to find I'm wrong.

Is there any way to apply settings from one raw conversion program to another? In my case, I'd love to use some of the settings in Nikon Capture NX, particularly automatic CA Correction, before reopening them in Adobe Camera Raw. The files are from a Nikon D-300.

I notice that thumbnails in ACR reflect NX editing, but just for a moment. Once they're clicked or switched to High Quality, the NX changes disappear.

[Schewe]

Is there any way to apply settings from one raw conversion program to another?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, other than Camera Raw & Lightroom, all other processors are proprietary with completely un-interchangeable processing parameters...

[Panopeeper]

In my case, I'd love to use some of the settings in Nikon Capture NX, particularly automatic CA Correction, before reopening them in Adobe Camera Raw

I think you misunderstood the nature of raw processing. You are not yearning for the setting in CNX but for CNX' algorythm, namely there is no standard for CA correction.

The same is true re almost all adjustments. With the exception of the white balance and "exposure correction", the effects of all adjustments are specific to the raw processor.

I notice that thumbnails in ACR reflect NX editing, but just for a moment

The thumbnails reflect the result of NX editing, for NX replaced the thumbnails. They will be displayed by ACR only until it has constructed the image in memory.

No, other than Camera Raw & Lightroom, all other processors are proprietary with completely un-interchangeable processing parameters...

What a BS - as if ACR's adjustments were not proprietory!

[Schewe]

What a BS - as if ACR's adjustments were not proprietory!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As far as I know, the only raw processor that can share it's settings with any other raw processor is Camera Raw & Lightroom...I never said they weren't proprietary...but they could exchange settings. No other raw processors (that I'm aware of) can do that with other raw processors...

[Tony Beach]

As far as I know, the only raw processor that can share it's settings with any other raw processor is Camera Raw & Lightroom...I never said they weren't proprietary...but they could exchange settings. No other raw processors (that I'm aware of) can do that with other raw processors...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay, I was also going to react to what you wrote (hopefully with a little more tolerance), because it also appeared to me that you were writing that ACR and Lightroom were not proprietary.   I guess what you are intending to write was that Lightroom and ACR can share settings between themselves; however, it should be noted that they do not share either their own settings or other RAW converter's settings (or more specifically, algorithms in the case of CA removal).  Frankly, as far as I can tell both ACR and Lightroom use the same RAW conversion algorithms (so what's not to share?).

What I find peculiar is if someone goes to the trouble to open a file in NX and make adjustments to it, why they would want to open it up in ACR to do the final conversion.  Frankly, I prefer NX and practically other RAW converter program  to ACR for my D200; but I'm finding ACR more acceptable for my D300 than I did for my D200 and D70 RAW files.  If color consistency is the issue than I would stick with NX because its colors look better to me; if workflow is the issue, there are tools for that and I think this might be the biggest reason I will strongly consider Thom Hogan's [a href=\"http://www.bythom.com/nikond300guide.htm]Complete Guide to the Nikon D300[/url] since it includes a section on this very issue.

[madmanchan]

In general, each RAW processing engine has its own algorithms -- and hence its own set of parameters that drive those algorithms.

For example, a Sharpening setting of "10" in DPP has little relationship to setting sharpening to 10 in Camera Raw, or Capture One, or Capture NX, or Bibble, etc.

[Farkled]

There is possibly one way to answer yes.  DxO will output to DNG - which, of course, ACR/Lightroom will read.

[Panopeeper]

There is possibly one way to answer yes.  DxO will output to DNG - which, of course, ACR/Lightroom will read.

And what will be accomplished by that, beside nothing?

[Farkled]

And what will be accomplished by that, beside nothing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess there are two answers to your question.  To the extent that DxO accomplishes things better or more quickly than ACR, then possibly something got useful done; i.e., DxO's vaunted lens corrections not possessed by ACR.  The 2nd answer, of course, is that useful accomplishment was not required by the OP's question.

I'm sorry, I had to throw that 2nd one in there, but let us consider the 1st.  I find it very interesting that one converter can/will output something usable by other converters.  That gives rise to the idea of multiple, single purpose routines of low cost that can do useful things (correct for this single lens or reduce lens flare or whatever) in front of the general purpose converter.

[Panopeeper]

To the extent that DxO accomplishes things better or more quickly than ACR, then possibly something got useful done; i.e., DxO's vaunted lens corrections not possessed by ACR

I admit I had not taken your suggestion seriously. Raw processors usually do not update the raw *data* itself, and I assumed that this were the case with DxO too.

Now, I see that D2X in fact changes the raw data (apparently it creates a demosaiced, linear DNG image). In this light your suggestion is very logical. It's a pity, that Canon's DPP is not doing the same. (Canon's position is, that the customers do not need any other raw processor.)

[Michael Bailey]

Thanks for your replies. They were what I expected but, as I said, I was operating on hope over knowledge.

I had a few reasons for wishing that I could use two converters. One was that I'm new to Nikon, and until I get more comfortable with Capture NX's batching and workflow, I'll be relying on the more familiar ACR most of the time. However, I've learned already that NX does some things ACR can't. It can straighten out my fisheye lines and, as mentioned, it appears to be very good at correcting chromatic abberation on the fly. It would be nice to be able to use NX for those steps and then move over to ACR, at least until I decide to use NX for everything.

So far, Capture NX has been awkward for me, especially when I'm working on jobs that contain several hundred frames. I can't tell yet if the difficulty is within the program itself or just my lack of familiarity with its controls. I'll just have to learn and practice more.

The nice part of all this is that Nikon makes software that's good enough to create the problem in the first place. I used to shoot with Fuji and can tell you that their software is so slow and cumbersome that I never had any desire to use it at all, let alone in conjunction with another program. Lots of people raved about the quality of the Fuji-processed files, but I just couldn't afford the time Fuji required.

Thanks, again.                 MB

[Tony Beach]

So far, Capture NX has been awkward for me, especially when I'm working on jobs that contain several hundred frames. I can't tell yet if the difficulty is within the program itself or just my lack of familiarity with its controls. I'll just have to learn and practice more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Batch processing and copying and pasting your adjustments can expedite the process.  My biggest problem is that Capture NX and View NX (especially that later) start to hog all of my computer's RAM.  For me, this means I avoid View NX (Adobe Bridge might work better) and try not to open more then one or two files at a time in Capture NX.

[Daniel Arnaldi]

Batch processing and copying and pasting your adjustments can expedite the process.  My biggest problem is that Capture NX and View NX (especially that later) start to hog all of my computer's RAM.  For me, this means I avoid View NX (Adobe Bridge might work better) and try not to open more then one or two files at a time in Capture NX.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can use View NX as a batch coverter for NEFs while Capture NX is freed up for other work, View can read all the parametric adjustments that Capture makes not unlike LR and ACR sharing their parametric adjustments. In the case of LR and ACR they are both Adobe using the same converter engine so it makes sense that they can read each others adjustments, and the same is true for View NX and Capture NX.

Edit

CORRECTION - I said above that View NX can read and convert all Capture NX adjustments WRONG!!!   It can read all camera adjustments tagged with the NEFs and it will display the images in full resolution with any Capture NX adjustments, but it cannot convert files that have been edited by Capture, so much for sharing adjustments. The batch conversions that I have been using View for have only been with camera settings applied.

[sojournerphoto]

(Canon's position is, that the customers do not need any other raw processor.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And canon is, of course, correct - but ew may want alternatives

[Guillermo Luijk]

Is there any way to apply settings from one raw conversion program to another? In my case, I'd love to use some of the settings in Nikon Capture NX, particularly automatic CA Correction, before reopening them in Adobe Camera Raw.

There is a way, but difficult to achieve: you must sit the guys from Nikon and Adobe around the same table, and try to convince them to make a new version of ACR including the CA correction implementation from NX.

IMO the more sofisticated RAW developers become, the more features we will miss in any of them from some other. The clever idea could be just to choose the one that fits us best, and try to develop a workflow around it.

In my wish list there would be a RAW developer that just develops the RAW file in a totally neutral way, and ONLY applies those very few features that are strictly best applied over undemosaiced data (noise reduction, CA maybe,...) producing a n-bit high quality output that would go straight into Photoshop (or any other edition tool).

To constantly be comparing software tools makes us become eternally insatisfied software slaves.

[Peter_DL]

In my wish list there would be a RAW developer that just develops the RAW file in a totally neutral way, and ONLY applies those very few features that are strictly best applied over undemosaiced data (noise reduction, CA maybe,...) producing a n-bit high quality output that would go straight into Photoshop (or any other edition tool).

To constantly be comparing software tools makes us become eternally insatisfied software slaves.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FYI, cross-quoted your comment [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25032]here[/url].

Peter

--

[Czornyj]

In my wish list there would be a RAW developer that just develops the RAW file in a totally neutral way, and ONLY applies those very few features that are strictly best applied over undemosaiced data (noise reduction, CA maybe,...) producing a n-bit high quality output that would go straight into Photoshop (or any other edition tool).

To constantly be comparing software tools makes us become eternally insatisfied software slaves.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suppose you wouldn't like the look of RAW developed "in a totally neutral way".

I'm using Photoshop since v. 2.5 (it was the first release for PC, I also had been using Aldus Photostyler before PS was available), but I'd rather say that ACR sets me free, and I don't feel slaved nor dissatisfied.

[madmanchan]

To constantly be comparing software tools makes us become eternally insatisfied software slaves.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But your proposal simply shifts the "problem" elsewhere. If all the raw converter does is push basic uncorrected pixels into PS, the discussion shifts to the millions of possible ways to "correct" those pixels in PS. (notice the many, many books and articles on PS discussing techniques, actions, etc.)

It would be sort of like saying, well, there should only be 1 camera and 1 lens on the market which captures a basic image and then we can do the rest in PS. Otherwise we would spent too much time comparing cameras and lenses (which we do, funny enough).  

[digitaldog]

It would be sort of like saying, well, there should only be 1 camera and 1 lens on the market which captures a basic image and then we can do the rest in PS. Otherwise we would spent too much time comparing cameras and lenses (which we do, funny enough). 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said!

The argument (To constantly be comparing software tools makes us become eternally insatisfied software slaves.) is preposterous. The discussion should focus on using the right tools for the job. Plus understanding that rendering isn't color correction (a fix for a problem that never needed to be).

I'm SO tired of hearing those 37 step Photoshop routines to fix a problem (or polish a pixel based turd) that wouldn't have existed if someone just rendered the image properly (or scanned the film correctly) in the first place. But this often sells books or seminars or makes the Photoshop user seem macho.

[Tony Beach]

You can use View NX as a batch converter for NEFs while Capture NX is freed up for other work, View can read all the parametric adjustments that Capture makes not unlike LR and ACR sharing their parametric adjustments. In the case of LR and ACR they are both Adobe using the same converter engine so it makes sense that they can read each others adjustments, and the same is true for View NX and Capture NX.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have an Intel Dual Core 2.4GHz, 2 GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS video card; but the available RAM simply disappears and the computer slows to a crawl when I try to run both View and NX simultaneously, and it gets even worse when I try to open and edit an image in Photoshop while they are both open.  Perhaps you could advise me what I need or am doing wrong, I would appreciate it.