I will certainly take up your challenge. I am not that proficient.
I use mainly NX2, bat as I said earlier I do love LR2 too and IMHO a combination of the 2 would be a hell of a software. What I really like in NX2 over LR2 is that it takes into consideration ALL of my camera settings, while LR2 does not. They have improved a lot with the new profiles and I like it, but why should I recreate in PP what already exists out of the box...
George61d
Thanks for taking the time to offer a side by side test. My lack of skills are making a decision difficult but here we go...
First let me say that I do not see a great deal of difference as shown. I'd pick the images on the right as being rendered by NX because they seem to have more adjustment range, possibily indicating less initial manipulation in PP. This would imply that the images on the left have been manipulated more in order to attain the same result (LR).
George61d wrote:
So james - take the challenge. Tell me which of the above shots were rendered by NX.
George, I think you've proved an important point. Either program will give you 99% of what the other will if you know how to work them properly.
I, like Herb, prefer my raw files to be just that, raw. I have Lightroom set to import low contrast low brightness images by default, much like I would in the chemical darkroom. Then I use my own presets to taylor a shoots look and then do individual edits. I can certainly see why someone would prefer NX's ability to read the metadata settings, but for me it's largely irrelevant.
-------------
Having said all that, I don't believe image quality should be the deciding factor for the vast majority of users. LR2, Aperture, Bibble and NX are going to product equally high quality images that only a select few will be able to tell the difference between.
I do seriously believe a lot of the reports of NX offering higher quality are largely because of it's reading of the meta-data and the way it will finish off files with less effort than Lightroom. It offers a more automated approach to polished results, hence the popular opinion it's better at processing raw's.
But, that's just like my opinion man. For me the deciding factor is workflow and which company I think will push the envelope faster with software production and support.
I would guess the right one is NX (for the first photo at least. donno about the 2nd if it's not the same) because it seems to have less red bias. LR/ACR tends to push reds in my experience.
I believe the NX2 experience is very computer dependent. Anything less than top of the line will feel sluggish, whereas LR will perform decently with most current machines. Personally, I'm a volume shooter and as long as I'm getting what I like out of LR I use it. However if a photo just doesn't look right with LR, I'll process it with NX2 and see if it's any better. Often photos with a lot of people (skintones) look better with NX. I admit I'm trying to get the hang of NX2 tho.
poisonpill wrote:
I believe the NX2 experience is very computer dependent. Anything less than top of the line will feel sluggish, whereas LR will perform decently with most current machines...
It was the case with LR, I for one find that LR2 has joined NX2 in the lack of speed dept on less than stellar machines...
But I am retired with plenty of times on my hands and shoot only a few hundreds pics per month thus I can manager with NX2 on my lowly Centrino machine with 2GB of RAM.
First off let me say that there is no time spent on PP in the LR images.
When shooting most of my work is done in the standard picture control, which I have altered so that sharpening is turned up. The reason for this is that many of my shots are event based photos and have to go more or less straight to print and are then posted to my clients. I have found the standard control gives the right images for this.
Normally when you open a NEF file in LR it opens the shadows more than NX does when the standard control is set. This is extremely useful as it gives a broader dynamic range to work with if you plan on doing some PP. ( no doubt i could get NX to do the same either by shooting in the Neutral setting with reduced contrast or by using active d-lighting). However its not so useful if you more or less want to go straight to print.
When I first got the D3 I spent about 15 mins looking at some shots in NX and then the same in LR and I found if I boosted the contrast slightly and pumped vibrance up to 11. I could get the two products to produce a similar result. So similar that it was hard to tell the difference. LR 2 Camera profiles have all but removed that difference now for 99% of my shots. So this setting was saved as a preset and is automatically applied when files are ingested. In effect the two converters are now applying the same interpretations of the NEF file and I do not have to do any pp work.
Where I do find the results to differ is if there are gradual transitions from dark to bright in yellow. The first shot shows to different interpretations of the wall to the left of the drain pipe. In this example NX makes a smooth transition all the way to the last little bit when it makes an abrupt transition to almost white. In fact NX (without PP) almost blows the green channel. LR on the other hand handles that transition quite well and keep yellow all the way to the top. However it does make a rough transition about 3/4s of the way up the wall.
The second place where results differ is when the camera gets WB wrong, particularly just after sunset when LR produces an amazing but incorrect Neon blue, while NX, out of the same file, produces a nice, but equally incorrect dusty bluey/greeny type colour.
So the obvious question then is why use LR for my shots if all I am doing is producing what i would get with NX any way. Well the answer is speed and integration. On my quad core G5 NX is way too slow - just as an example on a 12meg shot if I want to set the grey point it can take 5 or more seconds to re-render an image from the time I click the eye dropper tool on an neutral point. In addition NX does not integrate with the rest of my tool set. I have scripts set up to take my ranked event shots, slap em into my corporate web format and add in all the shopping stuff and then publish them.
We all want our shots to have the best image quality. But since there is no absolute definition of image quality, what we are really saying is We want our shots to look the way we want them to look. Arguably the best tool is then (as Jack and Herb said above) the tool that gets us that look with the least hassle. For Jack and Herb this resulted in a different answer. Despite assertions to the contrary there is not a vast difference in general between these two tools in terms of RAW conversion. You will from time to time find that for specific shots one tool will render the image better than the other when compared to your internal view of image quality.
BluePixel wrote:
Wow guy's! You are very passionate about photography. Talking about loyalty.
OK. Here is my vote:
1. Lightroom. Just because i like it.
2. Nikon. I like black lenses.
3. Mac. Just because it looks cool.
4. Audi. It's simply better then Bimmer and Merc.
5. I-Phone. I just like it.
6. huey. It's just small and cute.
7. Gitzo. Just because i have it.
8. Orange juice. Trust me, it's better then apple juice and pop.
9. Coffee. Definitely tastes better than sweet tea.
1. NX2. I like it better
4. BMW rules!
6. Too basic, I use X-Rite/One-Eye
George61d wrote:
We all want our shots to have the best image quality. But since there is no absolute definition of image quality, what we are really saying is We want our shots to look the way we want them to look. Arguably the best tool is then (as Jack and Herb said above) the tool that gets us that look with the least hassle. For Jack and Herb this resulted in a different answer. Despite assertions to the contrary there is not a vast difference in general between these two tools in terms of RAW conversion. You will from time to time find that for specific shots one tool will render the image better than the other when compared to your internal view of image quality. ...Show more →
I have to agree here. After using the trial version of both, I have decided to go with LR2. Although I do like LR2 better purely for reasons other than image quality, I do find the images I get from either one to be high quality. The new localized edits and use of color profiles did a lot to narrow the gap, but the kicker for me was the simple fact that LR2 handles my printer better than NX2. I don't think you can go wrong with either one, so it just comes down to whichever works best for your needs.
For me the deciding factor is workflow and which company I think will push the envelope faster with software production and support.
