Finally get myself a Nikon Z7 (so small!!!!!!!)
I am currently using Adobe Lightroom 6 and have no intention to upgrade to CC (don't feel like paying $10/month)...
If you one of Z7/Z6 owners who still using Lightroom 6 - please share your workflow..
I do have Nikon Capture NX-D, so I was planning to use it to process RAW files from Z7 to TIFF, and then use TIFF files in LR6.
Capture NX-D interface and workflow is not the best or easiest on the market , so any other ideas or suggestions are welcome.
Yes, BUT, if you convert all your NEF files to DNG's, and don't keep your original NEF files, other non-adobe raw converters (ie. Capture One) will not work fully with the resulting DNG's.
Recommendation - if you're going to use DNG's keep your original NEF files in case you decide to change raw converters in future.
davidrwilliams wrote:
Yes, BUT, if you convert all your NEF files to DNG's, and don't keep your original NEF files, other non-adobe raw converters (ie. Capture One) will not work fully with the resulting DNG's.
Recommendation - if you're going to use DNG's keep your original NEF files in case you decide to change raw converters in future.
Most raw processors have full DNG support, including Capture One. I agree it's a good idea to keep the NEFs - you can even embed them in the DNGs (and extract them out of the DNG later if necessary).
Be careful with that - yes, CaptureOne can support DNG's, but in my experience with v12.1 the support is less fully functional than for an NEF file, which has led to me keeping only NEF files. If I convert a raw file to DNG and import it into CaptureOne, it's clear that CaptureOne is handling the DNG files differently, with varying lens correction values, differing white balances and likely other differences.
...and, I've lost original raw files by having them embedded in DNG's when the DNG tool was unable to recover the original raw file and simply reported that it couldn't extract the raw file. Thanks, that's great.
...and I've never had a raw file corruption problem, whereas I have had DNG corruptions that were unrecoverable without access to the original raw file.
...and, DNG files with embedded raw files are about double the file size of the original raw file.
...and since every change that LR makes to a DNG is written into the DNG file, every time you backup your images and request that only new files be backed up, every single DNG file that's has even the most minuscule change made to it will need to be backed up, whereas raw files adjusted in LR have the LR instructions written to their .xmp files only, so that the only files that need be backed up to keep a fresh backup are the associated .xmp files. This means that you can set your raw files as read only, backup both raws and xmp's, and only the xmp's will actually be copied with the actual raw file never being touched.
I've had way too many problems with DNG's over time to ever consider using them again, and strongly advise others to think very carefully before they embark down that path.
gdsf2 wrote:
My 2 cents. $10/month is a steal for LR and PS. Post processing software is the cheapest part of this hobby.
Couldn’t agree more - even though I prefer Capture One for raw processing, I still use LR for library management and culling, web posting, etc.
I can’t understand how a purchaser of a multi-k $ camera body (and likely with associated lenses over time) can balk at $10 a month for a full suite of image processing software. I understand the philosophical issue that some have with paying for using software on a monthly basis, but with the value proposition as it is (when compared to annual or bi-annual upgrade charges that most of us paid, only to regret that more frequent feature releases would take place), it seems like a false economy to not get the latest programs for such a low price.
davidrwilliams wrote:
Be careful with that - yes, CaptureOne can support DNG's, but in my experience with v12.1 the support is less fully functional than for an NEF file, which has led to me keeping only NEF files. If I convert a raw file to DNG and import it into CaptureOne, it's clear that CaptureOne is handling the DNG files differently, with varying lens correction values, differing white balances and likely other differences.
...and, I've lost original raw files by having them embedded in DNG's when the DNG tool was unable to recover the original raw file and simply reported that it couldn't extract the raw file. Thanks, that's great.
...and I've never had a raw file corruption problem, whereas I have had DNG corruptions that were unrecoverable without access to the original raw file. ...Show more →
These all sound like issues in how those apps are handling DNGs. There's nothing inherent to DNGs that would create these problems. And in terms of file robustness DNGs actually have a CRC on the raw image data, which allows corruption to be easily detected (and early) whereas most raw file formats do not.
davidrwilliams wrote:
...and, DNG files with embedded raw files are about double the file size of the original raw file.
This is expected since embedded raw files in the DNG essentially creates two sets of the raw data.
davidrwilliams wrote:
...and since every change that LR makes to a DNG is written into the DNG file, every time you backup your images and request that only new files be backed up, every single DNG file that's has even the most minuscule change made to it will need to be backed up, whereas raw files adjusted in LR have the LR instructions written to their .xmp files only, so that the only files that need be backed up to keep a fresh backup are the associated .xmp files. This means that you can set your raw files as read only, backup both raws and xmp's, and only the xmp's will actually be copied with the actual raw file never being touched. ...Show more →
as I have said awhile back I decided after using Lightroom and DxO, DxO became my primary raw conversion tool. have the current version of LR classic and I use PScc through the CC format. I just find DxO to be better flow thought out along with its satellite products. Adobe actually has had to play catch up a few times so far for usable product features
I finally abandoned LR 6 when I got the Z7. Switched over entirely to DxO PhotoLab 2, FilmPack 5 (mainly for its B&W controls), and ViewPoint 3. Now that they've integrated Nik Tools with PL2 I will get that eventually as well; I used Viveza and Silver eFex from LR6 much of the time. The only drawback is PL2 doesn't have an importer, so I wrote one to import images into an LR6-like structure, except 1) based on EXIF data instead of file modification, and 2) with JPEG, RAW, and Video files in separate subfolders. But it's just a simple command line tool I use on macos, in fact maybe a little too simple. (https://github.com/bson/imgimporter)
Stopped using PS a few years back, and with LR out of the loop I don't think I have any Adobe products left.
sjms wrote:
as I have said awhile back I decided after using Lightroom and DxO, DxO became my primary raw conversion tool. have the current version of LR classic and I use PScc through the CC format. I just find DxO to be better flow thought out along with its satellite products. Adobe actually has had to play catch up a few times so far for usable product features
What is it that makes DXO a better tool for you as compared to LR? I found DXO a little clunky compared to LR (in terms of user interface), but I may be missing something.
exactly the opposite of your view. LR starts off inducing you into their cataloging system. I've been working with a system since 1999. I am not about to change that. I find it rather as you put "clunky" right at the front door DxO actually integrates with LR. but then it works with other programs too. it took a little time for it to grow on me but it did mature. I find that all LR is to me is ACR repackaged out of PScc and even then its still maturing. I allow myself to work within or out of the adobe ecosystem. I have also found that they both learn from each other. but I have seen more come from DxO going to adobe. its down to what you drive more comfortably with.
I only started to use DxO with v5 before that it was real clunky and not even a raw conversion tool.
really, I find the interfaces between the two fairly close.
, so any other ideas or suggestions are welcome.
