Will Adobe's move give Nikon a nudge?

[dustydingo]

re: Adobe's move to subscription model for Photoshop.

 

Is this an opportunity . . . or catalyst . . . for Nikon to pull their collective fingers out and upgrade/improve Capture?

 

I use Capture for its superior NEF conversions, but most (though not all) editing after that is in Photoshop. Now, if Capture improved some of its more glaring weaknesses some may not rue Adobe's move as much . . . let me rephrase that: I may not rue Adobe's move as much (I know I know, self self self . . . ).

 

Or have Nikon abandoned future development/enhancement of Capture, as I have seen speculated elsewhere?

 

Please note, I am not conversant with the practicability/usefulness of Canon software, but the same may apply there too???

 

dd

[David Davies]

Why not use Lightroom, hopefully that will not be only subscription?

 

(another) DD

[dustydingo]

Why not use Lightroom, hopefully that will not be only subscription?

 

(another) DD

 

David, the purposes I need PS for are mostly beyond what LR can do . . . there are of course are some things LR can do that PS can't (time-lapse associated especially), but overall PS is the one, once I've let Capture do its magic. So to me Adobe's move re: PS is of concern, a concern not obviated by LR.

 

(a non-capitalised) dd

[Steve B]

re: Adobe's move to subscription model for Photoshop.

 

Is this an opportunity . . . or catalyst . . . for Nikon to pull their collective fingers out and upgrade/improve Capture?

 

I use Capture for its superior NEF conversions, but most (though not all) editing after that is in Photoshop. Now, if Capture improved some of its more glaring weaknesses some may not rue Adobe's move as much . . . let me rephrase that: I may not rue Adobe's move as much (I know I know, self self self . . . ).

 

Or have Nikon abandoned future development/enhancement of Capture, as I have seen speculated elsewhere?

 

Please note, I am not conversant with the practicability/usefulness of Canon software, but the same may apply there too???

 

dd

I must admit I am with you on the capture NX for nef conversions, I downloaded the trial the other week and was so impressed that I purchased the full version a few days later.. Like you i finish off in PS ( but am finding that I dont have to do much in PS now )  I also down loaded a few capture NX tutorials from nikon for a few dollars and was amazed at what can be done in capture NX on it's own...come on Nikon a upgrade would be good, fingers crossed.

 

Steve.

[David Davies]

dustydingo, I was thinking of LR for the raw conversion and maybe CR6 or older for the PS work!

I use CS3 at the moment, after processing in LR2, or LR4, which I have on another machine.

 

DD

[dustydingo]

dustydingo, I was thinking of LR for the raw conversion and maybe CR6 or older for the PS work!

I use CS3 at the moment, after processing in LR2, or LR4, which I have on another machine.

 

DD

Ah, okay David, I'm with you now . . . however, as I said above, I use Capture as NEF conversion, and it is without peer in my experience, so LR not really in the hunt in that race. LR is great for my time-lapse dabbling, but  I use PS for other stuff, especially like correcting verticals and playing around with multi-layers, so looks like I'll be using CS6 for quite a while. But . . . if Nikon took this opportunity, I'd be more than a happy camper and less concerned about Adobe's move re: PS.

 

dd

[Craig Yates]

I have always used capture NX 2 to edit all of my images along with color Efex filters,This keeps my workflow pretty rigid and consistent.

I have tried light room but just cannot give it any love and find i can work faster with NX 2. I prefer to get to know one piece of software well as opposed to jumping form one to the other.

Nikon could carry out a major update, but it works really well for me in it's current format apart from the occasional crash it dives into.

However with a fast machine at least it crashes and reloads faster.

 

Regards

Craig

[Alistair Scott]

I too use Capture NX to covert my RAW files, working on the - possibly flawed - premise that Nikon knows best how to handle its own files.

 

I then do further work in Photoshop (PS7 would you believe! It does everything I want it to).

 

I'm thinking of giving Lightroom a whirl to see how it goes, but looking at what Craig says, I'm beginning to wonder.

[Ed Rooney]

I too use NX2 and CS5 as well as LR4 . . . but before I join those Adobe chaps in their Cloud I'll go back to shooting jpegs and using iPhoto or Picasa. 

 

Hey, Dusty—remember when Nikon had their own scanning software? Not a good sign. 

[dustydingo]

I too use NX2 and CS5 as well as LR4 . . . but before I join those Adobe chaps in their Cloud I'll go back to shooting jpegs and using iPhoto or Picasa. 

 

Hey, Dusty—remember when Nikon had their own scanning software? Not a good sign. 

 

I do indeed Ed . . . was that back in the days when you guys all drove unicorns? ;-)

 

And yes, there are no signs that I'm aware of re: Nikon paying any attention to Capture's development at all.

 

It's probably too late anyway: looking at the improvements in LR and CS, Capture is increasingly lagging, although I still get the best results from it as a Raw converter. So for those really important images I want the "best" results for, I still use it. But for any batch processing of large numbers of files where the Raw conversion isn't critical, I use Photoshop purely for the refined workflow possible--I recently edted over 5,000 images of a sporting competition, if I was using Capture I'd have taken two or three times longer I reckon, such is the difference between workflows.

 

I'm still not decided on how to react to Adobe's cloud affair, there are of course many alternatives, and when push comes to shove, I'll take a deep breath and stick with Capture, taking two to three times longer to edit large batches . . . at least until I find an workable alternative.

 

dd