DeltaSigma
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Manual Focus Nikon Glass | |
Ken Hill wrote:
Ballard wrote:
Ken Hill wrote:
Ken, I use the “Joke” software and find it is fast, intuitive, easy and free. The latest version of Nx, either capture or view, allows me to host RAW files perform simple tweaks, crops and edits and convert them to JPEG most of which gets posted here. I don’t like to do a lot of PP probably because I consider it more artwork than photography. I use an old edition of Elements for creating panos and when needed for spot cleanups. YMMV !
Ken, I don't mean to disparage your use of the Nikon software. It's just that having worked in both color and B&W darkrooms in the days of film photography, I find the tools in LR and PS intuitive to use (at least after the initial learning curve). The Nikon software products feel clunky in comparison, and I'm always fighting with them to get the results I want.
Also, I don't consider my photography to be artwork, but my darkroom experience has influenced the way I approach images. The camera produces an “objective” recording of a scene. The human visual system does not render an objective recording of anything. There is a vast amount of neurological processing of the “objective” information produced by the retina before that scene reaches our conscious awareness. Frequently darkroom—or post-processing in the digital age—is required to get the rendered scene to approximate what we “saw.” JPEG or TIFF images from the camera already have a lot of processing applied using generic algorithms that work for the majority of scenes. But that generic algorithm may not be what I want from an image. That’s why I prefer to work with RAW files which are the unprocessed information from the sensor.
Also, I sometimes revisit an image and process it quite differently. Ansel Adams, with his background as a classical pianist, refered to the negative as the score and the print as the performance. Any score can be interpreted quite differently in different performances. BTW, I’m not in any way comparing myself to Adams. I’m just a clumsy amateur trying to have some fun with a hobby.
RAW files lend themselves to post-processing in ways that TIFF and especially JPEG images do not. The latter will often show severe banding in gradients when subjected to post-processing.
So, Ken, if your approach works for you, I say “go for it.” I like working with RAW files, and I don’t want to plunk down a big chunk of change and then find that I’m not able to use the RAW files from the Z6.
Just a few thoughts from the other Ken. BTW, I like seeing pics from your road trips. I miss the road trips David and I took together.
Ken,
I too do all my editing in raw and rely on the free Nikon software to do this. Quoting from the post below, Jose sums it up for me very well
“Ballard, just my 2 cents:
I convert Z files using the manufacturer software from which we can get intact and original data from the camera.
I use the humbe VNX-i to open files, then, if necessary, make little adjustments at Capture NX-D and then convert/save a tiff 16bit file for further work at CS6.
I am happy with this workflow, even with older cameras whhose RAWs can be converted by ACR: I found the VNX-i or CNX-D conversion is at least slighlty better.”
I admire your analogy to Ansel Adams but thats not what I seek!
We’re on the road again soon. Driving the Vette from Florida to Seattle. Meeting my kids, grandkids and cousins for an Alaskan Cruise where Nikon camera and MF glass is all I’ll have with me. Hope to have some good shots to share!
Ken,
Alaskan cruise - awesome!
Got room for one more?
I like LR therefore pay for it.....
One day I will try out ON1 again but previous experiences have not been good due to buggy software.
Back in the day when CD players were the in-thing I bought a really expensive Sony CD player. 1 day after the 12 month warranty it failed. Sony refused to accept my claim. For the last 35 years I have never bought a Sony product. Go figure  Brand loyalty works both ways.
Colin
|
