A rather astonishing (and somewhat contradictory) piece from Nikon regarding where Photoshop is truly appropriate (in their view). Apparently you need Capture to best insure Raw files aren't altered(??).
I'd very much like to see comment on this here. A quoted section follows with selections I have emphasized.
" Where does Photoshop come in? As graphic arts software, it's great for removing a telephone pole, or adding a drop shadow, or affixing a caption to your photo. But if you're using it to crop or straighten an image, or adjust contrast, brightness, saturation and curves, or to apply filters, you simply don't need it. Capture does all that and more. And remember, whatever change you make to your image in Capture becomes not a change to the image file, but a set of instructions that goes with the image file. Because of that distinction, the original instruction set and RAW image data are never replaced or overwritten. Simply close the file and the original stays original. You can, of course, do a "save as" to TIFF or JPEG from the original NEF if you need to. So we're not saying you shouldn't use Photoshop, just don't use it first. Photoshop is excellent for graphic artists; Capture is designed for photographers. And Nikon engineers have designed Capture to work with the pure Nikon image, saved as a NEF, right out of the camera. Capture is as specific to Nikon cameras as a Nikkor lens or Speedlight."
Hmmm. I guess I should only use "genuine" Apple mice with my computer as well. Oh no, wait - never mind, I forgot there's a standard in place...
Actually, it's not that astonishing - they're just promoting their own software. Not all photographers have switched to digital yet, possibly because fearing the need for a massive image editing software such as Photoshop. Promoting "Capture" in this way, Nikon is assuring photographers they don't need to spend a small fortune on Photoshop, when all the "simple" photo editing actions can be done from their software as well.
Regards,
Daniel
Posted by: Daniel Kasaj | April 16, 2005 at 01:31 PM
Your comment may apply to non-pro shooters who do not rely on file delivery to clients to earn a living. But for pro's, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop. Nikon has taken a hostle approach to Photoshop in their promotion. That is a major marketing error. Nikon's promo begs for a head to head comparison and if you do that, Capture looses big time:
Want to do local corrections? -Photoshop
Want to do cloning or healing? -Photoshop
Want layers? -Photoshop
What to do RGB>CMYK? -Photoshop
Want to do precise image sharpening? -Photoshop
Want to do color managed printing? -Photoshop
If you look at Capture vs Photoshop, Nikon Capture is about where Photoshop 2.5 was in image processing. But even then, Photoshop could do feathered selections and local corrections on an image, something Capture can't do.
Not only is Nikon not working with Adobe or 3rd parties to help adopt raw file format standards, Nikon has taken to encrypting certain private maker notes to make it harder on 3rd parties to decode NEF files.
Tell me, how is this good for Nikon photographers?
When the camera company you buy your camera from is working against freedom of choice for their users, you should question whether you wish to give up your freedom by purchasing into their "system".
No, the Nikon promo was very stupid because it exposes so many of the Nikon software’s weaknesses. Rather than trying to extol Capture's benefits, Nikon felt like comparing Capture to Photoshop-and with comparison advertising, the golden rule is to be darn sure that you win the competition. That’s marketing 101.
Posted by: Jeff Schewe | April 16, 2005 at 01:50 PM
Nikon are right that you should use Capture First, it is indeed more powerful with Raw than Photoshop, but ACR used correctly is non-destructive too isn't it?
How is it though that ACR and others can handle images much more quickly than Capture.
Posted by: Doug Young | April 16, 2005 at 04:30 PM
er, no. nikon is not right. nikon capture is just one tool to demosaic NEF files, but it's far from efficient. nikon should compete on a feature to feature basis rather than scaring unwitting photographers about the merits of using alternative software.
for the majority of pro's NC is just too slow. for mac users, it looks entirely like an after thought.
Posted by: nunatak | April 17, 2005 at 05:58 PM
I only said Nikon were right on [b]one[/b] of several points made in the excerpt
I never said Capture was efficient either, but what tool with a Mac interface has as many options as Nikon Capture dedicated to working on raw files, where those tools are used to modify the preferences associated with each Nef.
Also the discussion was between Photoshop and Capture. Of the two Capture has the most flexibility with Raw and there are a number of tools included to help get around it's speed issues.
You can always check your email or clean your lenses while Batch does it's thing.
Of course there are many alternatives to Capture including;
Bibble - Very Powerful, but with a totally un-maclike interface and odd shortcuts
RawDeveloper - with some intriguing features but a strange workflow.
CaptureOne - which I have only briefly played with and just plain didn't like
ACR - Mentioned above as part of Photoshop, fast and easy to use, but lacks some useful Power features (for this reason I prefer to use Capture before moving to Photoshop)
Admittedly, having said that, the pathetic speed of Capture does leave me reaching for ACR when those more advanced features aren't needed.
Posted by: Doug Young | April 17, 2005 at 11:01 PM
What is astonishing about this article from Nikon is that the product is so horribly inferior to Adobe Camera RAW, for batching or for single image processing. It is incredibly slow, the user interface it not at all intuitive, and here's my favorite part- it costs $99. So, you've just shelled out $4,000 on a D2x body and you have to pony up for the software too?
At least Canon doesn't charge extra for their software, which is about on par as far as usability goes. PhaseOne's CaptureOne LE is only $99; of course that is for Canon, but it's a great RAW file processor. The beta version of CaptureOne RC, the version for processing Nikon D2x NEF files, was just posted four days ago. If it weren't for the folks at Adobe and PhaseOne building support for NEF's, the Nikon digital SLR's would be dead in the water for professional use.
Posted by: gragegrl | April 18, 2005 at 06:09 PM
Cost and Speed are definite issues, but apart from ACR anything else as powerful seems even more counter intuitive.
At least Nikon Capture is consistent with many of the standard Mac and Photoshop shortcuts.
Posted by: Doug Young | April 19, 2005 at 03:41 AM
I think we are missing the point here. The question to me is not whether the Nikon software is better than Adobe's raw convertor, it is that Nikon is taking away my choice. I have been a photographer since 1959 (was an instructor in the Air Force photo school for 7 years). I have used Nikon cameras since 1960, so I am not normally a Nikon basher. But what they are doing would be the equavalent of telling me that I can only use Kodak film in my Nikon F cameras.
I do not like Nikon's Capture software and if that is the only choice I have, the next time I need a new ditital SLR I will have to look for a different camera maker for the first time in my career.
Posted by: Jerry Day | April 19, 2005 at 07:49 AM
I think you've summed it up perfectly Jerry.
Posted by: gragegrl | April 19, 2005 at 09:14 AM
Removal of choice would seem to be Nikons aim, but I doubt they will ever get there.
Bibble has already cracked their encryption while Adobe have chosen not to.
Adobe will still allow us to set a new white balance and for me this is not so bothersome as I only consider that a staring point anyway.
If anything Nikon are going to push us away as third party software becomes more powerful.
Posted by: Doug Young | April 19, 2005 at 06:28 PM
Since Rawformat.com can't be bothered to post proper contact details - can you find an email address?, and the under-qualified webmaster at this site has decided to opt for frames - so that every single page you visit has the same URL, making it impossible to send a specific page reference to a third party.... when will a site that purports to be internet-ready actually make things easier for us? The design of the site is crap - what the hell is the point of putting it on the internet, but not offering an email contact address straight from the front page. Anyway - if you visit www.sd9.org.uk and migrate to Links - you will see why we rate the design of your site at about 10% - could do better, in fact, about 90% better.
Posted by: John Nuttall | April 24, 2005 at 03:51 PM
Help ???? I can not open Adobe Photosop 7. It says I am missing NEFLibrary3PS.dll file. I can not find this file any place...I use windows XP on a Sony Vaio laptop. I have reinstalled ps7 but no help......any ideas?????
Posted by: Larry Avi | May 01, 2005 at 08:56 AM
your website is unreadable because your typeface font is grey on a dark blue background and it blends in completely. absolutely unreadable. You might want to change color to yellow.
thanks
mj
Posted by: mercure | August 26, 2006 at 12:18 PM
If you are getting the neflibrary3ps.dll missing error message on a Windows computer, browse to the Adobe Photoshop Plug-in folder (e.g., C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS3\Plug-Ins\File Formats\) and remove the Nikon NEF Plugin LE.8bi file.
Posted by: Robert | October 03, 2009 at 08:26 AM
Could you please use spell check or learn how to spell 'ensure'.
Ta
Posted by: Gramma Police | October 05, 2010 at 07:28 PM