This cast happens in areas outside the definitions of aberrations, so the only thing that can be done is selecting the lens carefully.
If you could fix that in PP you would not need sharp lenses. So something good DID come out of this article.
LR has a solution that works to some degree, but I have never tried the Nikon solution. Just to hammer this home: it is an article claiming to compare features of two sw packages.Īny day I have a suitable image, I will try the Nikon slider. So it would have been awesome to have the SW testers here give us their take, instead of our foregone conclusion: "it can't be fixed". Now do me a favor and tell me whether DPR tested this feature axial I did try to get rid of it with the Nikkor G 85mm F1. Longitudinal aberration is typical at long focal lengths. Axial aberration occurs when different wavelengths of light are focused at different distances from the lens focus shift. Nikon has some great explanations as well and a lot of course material, but not nearly as much as Adobe, which is to be expected with a basically free editor. This should factor in when you compare sw solutions.
Nikon capture nx d free download pro#
However, if you are serious with your photos, a step up to a pro software is def worth it.Īdobe has plenty of tutorials plus there are extremely competent bloggers like "Piximperfect" with great tutorials as well. No comparison because Capture One has a juicy price tag. I noticed that both Nikon products rendered the picture of the lady against the sky with a halo. Adobe Camera Raw Con - Camera support can take a while to arrive. If I would ever consider to switch I'd rather be on the path toward C1 but to be honest, also there I'm still not fully convinced due to my own findings and can't fully adhere to the many 'wow's' I hear daily about C1. I wouldn't know why I would disturb my proven workflow.
The color accuracy using the Nikon standard profiles which I don't like too much, a rather prefer Adobe Color is quite close, but I'm missing a small bit of detail in NX-D compared to LR. There is a very decent difference in what I would describe 'overall clarity', being NX-D almost 0. My most recent expertise with Capture NX-D is - although you would expect the best Nikon conformity - it wasn't very compelling. I care a lot about true detail, sharpness, noise handling and color accuracy and there it gets a complicated story. I'm a mainstream Adobe user for also other purposes beyond Photography but have tried out many softwares including C1 and Capture NX-D. As a longtime Nikon shooter, raw only picture control settings are only important in one respect, consistency So, on import, I am really unconcerned with the absolute fidelity of the initial conversion. Couple that with the integration of ACR now as a filter in Photoshop, or for that matter, just the fact that ACR and Bridge are just portals into Photoshop, and you are at another level altogether. The Nikon software is just not nor ever has been up to speed - not even close. In a commercial workflow ACR is essential for me. The NEF opens up in both converters looking "exactly" as I have shown Next time I'll drop the qualifier. They simply match, unerringly, and that's my point. If the results take a lot of wasting of time to get a better, more realistic image that the Nikon software has an advantage.ĭid you not look at the files in the link? Is that your idea of significant difference or should I have just dropped "almost" to avoid the possibility of a reply like yours? In a double blind test I don't think either of us could call them out and pick which converter Adobe or Nikon had made the conversion. The converter you choose has nothing to do with your success From New Zealand's iconic Milford Sound Adobe applies modest sharpening, by default I added. See the name? So you basically made this test review rather worthless.
0 kommentar(er)
