200 only works at 400 ISO and beyond and 400 needs 800ISO and beyond. It's so good I have stopped thinking about RAW. I simply can not recomend NX2 highly enough if you are a JPG shooter. There is masses of detail that you can bring out of shadow areas. I expose for good highlights and let the shadow take care of itself. You can adjust brightness though and add detail in highlights or shadow. The only thing it will not do is allow you to adjust exposure. It is the only program I know that allows you to treat a JPG as if it was a RAW file.
I also set the camera - a third of a stop with B+W. I turn the black n white to black n white lol sounds crazy I know but gives very contrasty results which I love. I have a little trick for black and white too. It sits inside capture NX2 and I use that for black and white.
I have CS4 too but I use Capture NX all the time. I've cut and copied some bits of his emails that maybe throw a little light onto your statement i quoted above:Īs for NX2. The email/s I referred to came about as a result of my whining about the XE-1 being confusing to me because it was in my eyes so completely menu driven (a major reason for me to buy a Df body to mate with my Nikon lenses from my F2 SB days and film) and wondering what attitude to take towards pre and post processing, which was also confusing to me, as a large part of my 77 year old photographic mind is still locked into film. Without that information, what you have been told is of limited use because his creative choices may not apply to you, your equipment or your shooting style." Manfred, you ended your last reply with these words:"The whole crux of my previous comment was not so much what this photographer does, but rather understanding the context as why he does so.
#Nikon capture nx2 tutorial video software
Wow! This thread has gone a long way past my question re free software, but it has been a most interesting/enlitening series of comments from intelligent photographers, and far more worthwhile reading than the cost of the Nikon software in Canada!
Without that information, what you have been told is of limited use because his creative choices may not apply to you, your equipment or your shooting style. The whole crux of my previous comment was not so much what this photographer does, but rather understanding the context as why he does so. I possibly could get the jpeg to work, but if it doesn't then I would have wasted my time and had to go back to the raw. If it is not right, or more likely the in-camera processing engine doesn't create an image that meets my expectations, then I will go to the raw image. If the lighting is right (I can achieve this 100% in studio shots), I have no issues at all going with jpegs. I'm a raw + jpeg shooter and if the images are good enough, I will go straight the the jpegs. This too is a valid reason to not shoot raw. Note - this was a common complaint by Nikon users prior to the 2012 Adobe raw conversion engine. I have also heard complaints from a number of FujiFilm camera users that the raw converters from both Adobe and to a lesser extent, Capture One do not do not produce acceptable raw conversions. Again, if it is good enough for them, who am I to suggest anything different. This is no different than other photographers I know who exclusively process their image in Lightroom rather than going to a more advanced pixel based editor like Photoshop. Nicely said there is nothing wrong with this, so long as it satisfies their clients needs. In their case it, as they are event or wedding photographers this is a measure that saves them time. I wouldn't know about wondering about his knowledge, Manfred, but I do assume from his words that he no longer sees benefits to using RAW in his work.I know several commercial photographers who shoot only in jpeg.
0 kommentar(er)
