D3 Software Processing Comparison
Update: December 2009
This article has been updated and a follow-up on the RAW Software comparison can be found on my blog under the title - Aperture or Lightroom?
This post bring the content of this article current as of December 2009 with Aperture version 2.1.4 and Lightroom 2.5. It is highly recommended to read both articles.
Preliminary notes
This page contains a comparative study that I conducted to find out what is the best software to process Nikon NEF Raw files produced by the Nikon D3. As every camera is different this study might not be relevant for some other brand of camera.
As the software is constantly improving I'm working on updating this page with the last versions and maybe extend the comparison to other raw images processors.
After using the D3 for a few weeks, I wondered what is the best solution to process the pictures. I'm an aperture user usually but so far the software does not support those files. The solutions available to me are currently Nikon View NX (free from Nikon), Nikon Capture NX (that came bundled with the camera) and Adobe Camera Raw/Photoshop CS3.
I took a sample image from a recent photo shoot and processed it with the different software.
The original picture is f/8 1/30th ISO 1800 24-70@68
The exact workflow was :
- original file in RAW/14 bit/Adobe RGB color space
from the camera
- opened in the software with default options
- saved as JPEG in the software after no other modifications.
- opened in Photoshop
- applied sharpening with the same level on
all files
- converted to sRGB color space
- saved the full size picture reducing to 800 pixels
wide. The original file is 4256 x 2832 pixels. The 800 pixels wide reduction
is about 18% of the original size.
- saved a sample part of the same image at 100% so
that the actual pixels are visible.
The results are below with the relevant comments.
 |
Nikon View NX - I like the skin tones and the overall balance of
the picture |
 |
Capture NX - I
see almost no difference with Nikon View NX |
 |
| Adobe Camera Raw - To me this picture is too bright. Some skin tones are lost especially on the arm and the face. The image looks almost overexposed (remember we are processing the same RAW file so the exposure is the same). |
 |
Aperture 2.0
- The result is closer to the Nikon software. The treatment of
the background areas is different, they appear brighter. To me
the arm in the front is a little over exposed. A few skin tones
are lost. |
Now let's have a closer look at the detail area. of the same picture.
 |
Nikon View NX -
I like the skin tones and the details |
 |
Capture NX - Once
again I see almost no difference with Nikon View NX |
 |
| Adobe Camera Raw - The model looks more pale than on the first 2 pictures. Same problem with the overall exposure. Look especially around the eye we have a lot of too white skin. |
 |
Aperture 2.0
- Skin appears a little more white than with the Nikon software.
It is a little overexposed to me but less than with Adobe Camera
Raw. |
Conclusion
To me, Nikon View NX and Capture NX do almost the same job at rendering the RAW file and give the best image. Adobe Camera Raw is not as good as the Nikon software in rendering the detail of the skin. Some details are lost due to the overall brightness of the picture. Aperture 2.0 is probably in the middle as far as image quality, with a different treatment of the image, a little overexposure too but not as much as Camera Raw.
Aperture includes a new image processor in the new version 2. I was wondering if it provides a real improvement over the previous version. The Raw processor version 1.1 was a big improvement over version 1.0. So here is about version 2.0.
The images taken with the D3 must be processed with the Raw processor version 2 and cannot be used with the previous version. So to conduct the test I took 2 older images from the D200.
This time I used only Aperture and did 3 images that
appear side by side :
- the original version from 1.5.6 processed with
the Raw processor 1.1
- the same image processed with version 2.0
- the same version processed with version 2.0 but
with the enhancements made possible with version 2.0 (the definition
and vibrancy adjustment)
Here is the result.
 |
Little visible
difference between the first 2 pictures, the hair is more brown
and less green. On the third image the details are better, the
colors are more vibrant without being modified, skin tones are
god, and I was able to correct the skin defects (look on her nose
for example) without having to take the picture to Photoshop. |
 |
There is a clear
difference in tint between the first 2 pictures. Look at the bottom
of the car and you will notice that the second pictures is less
green and more gray. The picture has a much lower green colorcast.
The difference with the third pictures are very minimal. The colors
are a little more vibrant and details are better but it does not
show much on that small size image. |
Conclusion
The new Raw processor clearly improve the quality of the images. If the end result is not perfect right away, the new adjustments (definition and vibrancy) provide a way to customize the result to your liking.
Copyright © 2010 Mindworks creation LLC. All rights reserved. Do not use pictures without written authorization.
