I know I'm waiting with bated breath for Adobe to update LR for the D600. So I thought some of you may be interested in this Twitter exchange with Jeffery Tranberry, the Product Manager for Adobe.
boshek wrote:
Maybe they should update with any new camera of substance
They probably would, if the camera manufacturers would be more cooperative... but then again, Nikon hasn't even upgraded their own RAW converter (NX2) to be fully compatible with the D600 yet.
molson wrote:
They probably would, if the camera manufacturers would be more cooperative... but then again, Nikon hasn't even upgraded their own RAW converter (NX2) to be fully compatible with the D600 yet.
I've been using NX2 to process my D600 raw files for the last week or so.
molson wrote:
They probably would, if the camera manufacturers would be more cooperative... but then again, Nikon hasn't even upgraded their own RAW converter (NX2) to be fully compatible with the D600 yet.
Steve Beck wrote:
Dng is a extra step of convention I don't personally have time for.
Jammy was talking about as a standard across camera manufacturers I believe. All of these proprietary RAWs aren't good for the industry.
Jack OBrien wrote:
Which part of NX2 isn't compatible with the D600?
It still doesn't recognize the D600 picture control settings... and even if it did, it's such a poor program I wouldn't even consider using if there was a viable alternative.
molson wrote:
It still doesn't recognize the D600 picture control settings... and even if it did, it's such a poor program I wouldn't even consider using if there was a viable alternative.
So no real issue then
Good to hear
Really enjoying using Nx2 again to process D600 files.
Until LR 4 was out, I preferred the output from Nx2 enough to put up with the slower processing times over LR.
molson wrote:
It still doesn't recognize the D600 picture control settings... and even if it did, it's such a poor program I wouldn't even consider using if there was a viable alternative.
I have to disagree. I just shot a couple of test pics using a modified Portrait picture control. In NX2 the settings matched what I had in camera.
Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding. Not important, not a big deal for me anyway.
I love that "poor program" I gotta admit. Many many good miles out of it. I guess it depends on your comfort level with a program, but I much prefer it to LR which I ended up deleting. Everyone is different, and that's likely a good thing.
NX2 is probably okay if you only shoot a couple of images a week and have lots of spare time on your hands, but from a workflow standpoint, it's a perfect example of why camera makers should stick to building cameras and leave software development to people who know what they're doing. It's a moot point now anyway, since Adobe just released updates to CS6 and LR4 which include D600 compatibility, so I can thankfully delete all that Nikon software again.
Steve Beck wrote:
Dng is a extra step of convention I don't personally have time for.
Just make a camera that makes DNGs instead of NEFs, CRW, ORFs etc..
LR4 D600 RAW files look pixilated and general IQ is poor vs other established camera RAW files. Unfortunately, it looks like there is a bug modifying files over NFS with viewNX so I might be stuck with LR4 :/
leighton w wrote:
Can you explain what you mean please?
rioni wrote:
Not a moot point yet. D600 LR support is pretty bad. I'm sticking to NX2 for now.
leighton w wrote:
Can you explain what you mean please?
rioni wrote:
LR4 D600 RAW files look pixilated and general IQ is poor vs other established camera RAW files. Unfortunately, it looks like there is a bug modifying files over NFS with viewNX so I might be stuck with LR4 :/
rioni wrote:
Not a moot point yet. D600 LR support is pretty bad. I'm sticking to NX2 for now.
leighton w wrote:
Can you explain what you mean please?
rioni wrote:
LR4 D600 RAW files look pixilated and general IQ is poor vs other established camera RAW files. Unfortunately, it looks like there is a bug modifying files over NFS with viewNX so I might be stuck with LR4 :/
leighton w wrote:
That's odd, I'm not seeing this issue.
rioni wrote:
I wouldn't have seen the issue either if I didn't compare the images in viewNX. Have you done that?
Looks the same to me in both.
Is it possible your update was corrupted?
