Noise!!!

[yewsef]

Hello Guys,

I've noticed with my D70s that when I shoot anything above ISO 400 I get lots of noise compared to other cameras. I know this is natural for my D70s, I've been wondering if Nikon have fixed this problem with the new models
(D200, D80, D40 and the coming D300) significantly? or am I going to expect almost the same results?

Is there a way to "measure" the noise level for a specific ISO for a specific camera model and compare?

[K1W1]

Yes newer cameras are generally better at high ISO noise but IMO the D50 has to be about the best (not counting D3 / 300 where the jury is still out).

[TheObiJuan]

Nikon did a great job of listening to their consumers.
The noise levels have dropped and overall image quality at higher ISO's increased.

You can look up the reviews-if available-of specific models on this website or dpreview.com.
100% crops are taken at all ISO levels and can be compared to other models.

[swpars]

I've only taken a few shots with mine, but at ISO 1600, the D40's noise level is pretty low. Haven't tried ISO 3200 yet.

[fionndruinne]

ISO 3200 on the D40 is pretty ugly no matter how you look at it, which is to be expected. You can still get small prints to look alright noise-wise, but there's a lot of color desaturation as well, and that's less easy to correct.

The D40's pretty darn good noise-wise. I don't have any noise at 400 unless the photo is significantly underexposed and then brightened (I've been doing that lately with raw format to capture higher dynamic range - it's actually very effective too). 800 and 1600, is good, but loses a little detail, 1600 is good as long as it's not underexposed.

[XaiLo]

The D40 is no slouch @ ISO 1600

100% Crop
f4.5 2sec 200mm ISO 1600
http://www.designsbyxailo.com/thepics/2007/10_oct/crop100.jpg

Resized Original
f4.5 2sec 200mm ISO 1600
http://www.designsbyxailo.com/thepics/2007/10_oct/resizedorg.jpg

[wh0128]

wow, that 1600 looks excellent at 100%.

But, what you need to do is actually take it out in the night and see how it works there, where noise is extremely noticeable.

[fionndruinne]

I don't consider ISO 1600 to be for night photography. For that, a slow shutter and a tripod just does so much better. High ISOs are more for getting the shutter speed fast enough to capture motion at less-than-noonday lighting conditions.

[LR Max]

Yep. Poor D70's have miserable ISO characteristics. For me, its 800 ISO. Anything above that starts to bother me. 1600 makes me all kinds of upset.

However, I have a fix. I am buying a D300 and that should solve my problem. My D70s, while it has been a great camera, has been torn up. Stuff rattles around inside of it, its got 50,000 on the shutter, etc. Stout little camera, but the next generation in awesomeness is coming out. It can't compete.

[tim11]

Too bad Coldrain isn't here to say Canon has less noise and probably turns this thread to 10 pages in one day. He is right on that count though; between Rebel XTi/400D and D80 at least. Any difference, however, is only clearly noticeable at 100% viewing.

[yewsef]

Too bad Coldrain isn't here to say Canon has less noise and probably turns this thread to 10 pages in one day. He is right on that count though; between Rebel XTi/400D and D80 at least. Any difference, however, is only clearly noticeable at 100% viewing.

Sadly that's true, but from what I've read the noise reduction is a PP added in the camera. I'm not sure if that's true or not. But over all, when I wanted to buy my D70s 2 years ago I compared photos and the equivilant EOS Canon camera used to have less noise.

I guess buying the D300 is a no brainer, specially since I will have the cash once it get released.

[r3g]

Does the in camera NR actually work. Ive tried testing it a few time and i could never see a different in noise even at 100%

[fionndruinne]

The NR you can turn on or off is only for "hot pixels" that develop in high-ISO exposures sometimes; it's not the same as the NR applied by the camera processor to reduce visible noise. That's not modifiable on Nikon DSLRs. The newest Olympus has customizable NR, but it's so bad noise-wise that it needs all the help it can get.

The D40 does have NR, but it's not so bad as the D80's. I'm thinking they're probably very similar in terms of threshold and programming, but the D40 6MP is a lot better noise-wise than a 10MP CCD. You can only notice a little detail loss at 1600 when you're viewing at close to 100% with the D40; with the D80 it's a lot more apparent.

[TheObiJuan]

I'm glad my 3 year old 20d has usable ISO 3200.
I use it all the time when shooting in clubs/bars/etc.

[cvicisso]

Before I shipped my D70 back off to Nikon for repair (again), I shot a bunch of pics at a friend's wedding this weekend. It was outside, on the beach, at sunset. It was a gorgeous venue and I got quite a few 'keepers' but they will definitely require some touch-up (I shot almost everything RAW and had the in-camera NR off).

I'm using the 30-day trial version of CaptureNX and I think I'm going to purchase it. LOVE the Control Point stuff. I can't however, figure out a good way to LOCALLY reduce the noise in some of the shots from the beach. Particularly in the black suits with the setting sun in the background. I reset the black and white control points using the double-threshold histogram technique, but the suits then turn out pretty noisy. The faces could be better too. Can I use a control point to reduce the noise LOCALLY - instead of globally across the whole picture?

I'm at work right now and can't post any examples, but those familiar with this problem can probably visualize what I'm talking about.

What are you CaptureNX folks using for noise reduction?

Thanks.

[GaryS]

If a Canon guy can chip in here.... Lets face it, we all fight noise...

My preference has been to ignore the noise created in my RAW converter (Canon DPP in my case). Change the exposure, contrast, whatever in the RAW converter, and then dump it into Photoshop.

In photoshop, I use a plugin called NoiseWare that I purchased separately. It does a terrific job cleaning up the noise without affecting detail. Plus, you can finely control how much noise reduction is needed for a particular shot.

My problem with the RAW converter's noise reduction is that it is basically ON or OFF (or MED or something), with no control over how much is enough. Plus, in Photoshop, you can apply the NR just to a bad spot, instead of the whole picture.

[TheObiJuan]

Lightroom's chroma noise reduction at 3-4 steps is perfect to remove color noise on my files.

Luminance is also adjustable, but not necessary for my application.

[toriaj]

I do a LOT of noise reduction, then add it as a separate layer. Erase the parts of the layer that didn't need noise reduction, and lower the opacity of the layer until I have the amount of NR that I want.

That's what I did on this shot. The NR is applied only to the foreground/buildings. http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=252335&postcount=14

[TNB]

I don't consider ISO 1600 to be for night photography. For that, a slow shutter and a tripod just does so much better. High ISOs are more for getting the shutter speed fast enough to capture motion at less-than-noonday lighting conditions.
I use high ISO whenever I need to and that includes 9PM, 10PM etc., especially when I can't use a slow shutter speed and can't drag a tripod around. ;)

http://image2-1.rcuniverse.com/e1/forum/upfiles/70716/Up47861.jpg

[Vich]

Yes newer cameras are generally better at high ISO noise but IMO the D50 has to be about the best (not counting D3 / 300 where the jury is still out).
I saw a string of ISO 3200 and above photos shot by a wedding pro with the D3. Even at ISO 25,000 (not a misprint he said). All looked very acceptable.

By acceptable - I mean the noise is visible, but not sand paper. Many photographers don't mind noise much.

[swpars]

Too bad Coldrain isn't here to say Canon has less noise and probably turns this thread to 10 pages in one day. He is right on that count though; between Rebel XTi/400D and D80 at least. Any difference, however, is only clearly noticeable at 100% viewing.

Take a look at the XTi (400D) and D40 ISO 1600.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d40-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xti-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

They're pretty similar. Knowing how Coldy feels about the D40, I feel that this is karmic. :)

By the way, for the Canonians here, this is nothing against the XTi -- it is a great camera. The only point is that the D40's noise at ISO 1600 is good for an entry-level DSLR, as is the XTi's.

[fionndruinne]

Yes, the D40 and XTi are quite similar. Of course, part of this is because the XTi has more megapixels, which makes for more noise. And the Canon chroma noise is more immediately obvious than the Nikon CCD luminance noise, which is partially removed via in-camera noise reduction.

See, I've argued with Coldy so much that I actually bring his points in along with mine now.:rolleyes:

[K1W1]

The NR you can turn on or off is only for "hot pixels" that develop in high-ISO exposures sometimes; it's not the same as the NR applied by the camera processor to reduce visible noise.

Don't you mean long exposures rather than high-ISO exposures?
From memory in camera NR is only useful for exposures longer than about 1 second and because of the in camera processing required it effectively doubles the exposure time in terms of how long it takes before another shot can occur.

[Rooz]

you can turn either NR on/ off. both hi iso and long exp. hi iso NR in cam works pretty well i found. i'm not good enuf to use NR software cos i cant understand it.

interesting what people consider useable and not. a 20d @ 3200 is usable ? well that depends on what you are using if for. its useable i guess in the same way as a 1973 Lada....it will serve a purpose...not very well, but serves the purpose none the less.

[K1W1]

On the D50 and I'm sure the D70s NR is long exposure only and the OP owns a D70s.

[Gintaras]

as XTi owner I can only say for Canon, its noise levels are good for the most but at 1600ISO i beg my pardon but noise becomes too visible for me... i rather prefer 100-400ISO range and rare shoot at 800-1600.

I wish Canon would have NR in camera not only for long exposure, smth Nikon has and Canon not.:(

[fionndruinne]

Don't you mean long exposures rather than high-ISO exposures?
From memory in camera NR is only useful for exposures longer than about 1 second and because of the in camera processing required it effectively doubles the exposure time in terms of how long it takes before another shot can occur.

I went into the menus and looked up the NR function. You're right, I was thinking long-exposure NR, but according to the help text for the noise reduction feature, it's for both long exposures and high sensitivities. I do believe it's meant to reduce hot pixel occurrence though, rather than regular luminance noise... I recall reading that somewhere credible, but where escapes me.

And yes, the XTi ISO 1600 noise, especially when viewed at near full size, is pretty ugly.

[fionndruinne]

... I'm certainly not unhappy with D40 ISO 1600 performance, though. In case anyone was wondering.:rolleyes:

29686
handheld, 1/13 sec., f/5, spot meter, tungsten WB, ISO 1600 @ 38mm

[TheObiJuan]

I suppose it comes down to levels of personal acceptability.
I'm used to heavy grain on ISO 400 & 800, so ISO 1600 on Canon digitals is really great. All I need to do is remove the color noise and PRESTO!

[Jason25]

I would say just buy and use the camera you want, use noise software and be happy. Noise is something we all deal with on different levels.

[Esoterra]

Make sure that you do not have in camera sharpening turned on and this will help with your noise levels. I prefer to shoot everything in RAW and use NO in camera touchup- so I shoot in Normal mode. All touchup is done in NX or Lightroom as necessary.

Hope this helps.

[tim11]

Noise is not the sole factor for my decision to buy a camera; other more important factors are involved.

Why noise on ISO1600 bothers me?
- I can't help pixel peeping 100% on the monitor.

Does noise on ISO1600 really bothers me in real life?
- In my life I have only enlarged less than 10 photos in 11x14", the rest are 6x4 prints. So in practical use any DSLR camera will work for me.

[e_dawg]

Can I use a control point to reduce the noise LOCALLY - instead of globally across the whole picture?


Yes, absolutely you can. Create a New Step and select Color Noise Reduction as your action. Then click on the Selection Brush and paint where you want to apply the NR. You should see the comment under the action heading change to Partially Selected. You can double-check the selected area by choosing View Selection in the View menu (?)

Keep in mind that this is only Colour Noise Reduction, so there will still be luminance noise.

As for your other question, what NR software do I use with Capture NX? I use Noise Ninja Pro edition. You can also use Neat Image and other equivalent software. To use these programs, you should export an unsharpened image that has not had any NR applied to it from Capture NX in TIFF 16 bit uncompressed format.

When you do NR in N Ninja or equivalent, do not apply any sharpening there either. Run the NR globally, then use the Undo brush to selectively reduce NR on textured surfaces or important features like hair, eyes, mouth, etc. Save as TIFF and import back into Capture NX to finish local adjustments, then resize, and then apply USM LOCALLY as a final step.

If you avoid all USM until the end, perform local NR and finally local USM, you will preserve the most detail and avoid enhancing noise as much as possible.

Another thing to remember is to shoot RAW and use the NEF file in Capture NX, not JPEG from the camera, as the JPEG already has in-camera NR applied to it, which means you're starting off with less detail to work with when you do your own NR.

[tekriter]

E_dawg...

You seem to have a pretty good handle on a few things that I'm struggling with.

Let me tell you about my typical workflow, and maybe you can suggest ways to improve my process with the goal of reducing noise.

I shoot a LOT of night sports for secondary school teams - American football, soccer, baseball, and so on. My setup typically is my D50, set to iso 1600, my 80-200 f2.8 D, and a monopod.

I shoot best-quality large JPEGS, file sizes usually around 2.5 mb. I have in-camera sharpening set to +1 Medium High in the Custom menu.

I load the JPEGS onto my Macintosh, then run all of them through Noise Ninja by using the Develop Profile from Image method. I set it for batch processing, and the 300 or so files generally take about an hour to process. I output the results as JPEGS, and then open the files in Photoshop Elements for cropping, levels, and Unsharp Mask if needed.

My results are OK, but still noisy. Because I only have the 200mm on the long end, I often have to crop out maybe 50% of the available pixels which really hurts!

Working in RAW is possible for me, but I wonder about the additional working time for RAW. As it is, in a weekend I may shoot four or five events and have as many as 1200 - 1600 images to work.

Would I be better off capturing in RAW, using Capture NX to convert to TIFF, and then run Noise Ninja? I could save the outputs from Ninja as JPEGS.

Any light you could shed on this process for me would be much appreciated!

[cvicisso]

Thanks for the very thorough answer e-dawg!

Another question... if I export a TIFF to Noise Ninja (or quivalent), won't I lose all the cool embedded NEF data that makes Capture NX so appealing to Nikon users?

I ask only because I'm trying to decide on a workflow (and I'm new to this), and I don't want to change it every couple/few years. I'd like to plunk down the cash now for the software, learn it, and stick with it. If I'm going to lose the big Nikon-user benefit of Capture NX (the camera settings and other stuff in the NEF file), I'm starting to think that maybe I should go with something else instead? I know that Noise Ninja is available as a Photoshop plugin... will this work (as a plugin) with Lightroom? I like plugins much more than standalone apps - the less apps I have to import/export/open/close/etc the better.

Thanks again for the help!

[Rooz]

Thanks for the very thorough answer e-dawg!

Another question... if I export a TIFF to Noise Ninja (or quivalent), won't I lose all the cool embedded NEF data that makes Capture NX so appealing to Nikon users?


i think edawg is saying export it first before you make any changes in NX. then when you bring it back you're "blank canvas" is a less noisy image to start with.

[cvicisso]

i think edawg is saying export it first before you make any changes in NX. then when you bring it back you're "blank canvas" is a less noisy image to start with.But won't I have to convert to TIFF first - before I export? That conversion process (I think) blows away all the cool Nikon NEF data. Then, when it gets imported back into NX - while the image may indeed be less noisy - it's not a NEF anymore, and some of the Nikon-exclusive NX functionality is lost (and Lightroom gains some points on my evaluation scale).

Please excuse the noob questions and pardon me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to get a grip on all this stuff before I spend the cash on the software.

[e_dawg]

I shoot a LOT of night sports for secondary school teams

Okay, let's stop right there. Available light and shutter speed are at a premium for night sports. You're already doing the right thing by using 1600 ISO and a fast 2.8 lens.


I shoot best-quality large JPEGS, file sizes usually around 2.5 mb. I have in-camera sharpening set to +1 Medium High in the Custom menu.

Okay, now here is where you could use some improvement "at the source". Here are some suggestions right off the bat:

1. Unless there is a specific reason why (like you shoot continuous bursts of 5-10 in a row and the RAW files clog up your buffer), you should be shooting RAW + JPEG. Why? Because shooting RAW is like getting another stop of speed with the ability to preserve more detail and retain less noise for any given level of exposure.

JPEG files out of the camera have already been processed to (a) reduce noise, (b) increase sharpness, (c) downconverted from 12-bits of information per pixel to 8-bits per pixel, and (d) compressed (using lossy compression) to reduce space. All of these steps throw out tonal and subtle colour data and obliterate the original pixel structure. Bottom line, you're not left with much to work with when it comes to post-processing. Once you've thrown away tonal data and pixel structure, it's gone forever. It's like always working with a photocopy instead of the original document.

2. If you insist on using JPEGs, unless you are going to use the JPEGs straight out of the camera, you should use the minumum sharpening so that you can preserve more of the original pixel data for use in post-processing. Sharpening, like NR, is a destructive action that changes the structure at the pixel level. When that happens before you even get to post-processing, you're always starting "from behind in the count" to use a baseball analogy.


I load the JPEGS onto my Macintosh, then run all of them through Noise Ninja by using the Develop Profile from Image method.

Is there a reason why you NR ALL your files? The reason I ask is to make a point... because if you're like most sports shooters, you probably shoot lots of pics and play the numbers game. You take a lot of shots and hope that maybe half of your pics are technically acceptable (i.e, not blurry, proper focus and exposure, framing), and a quarter of those are actually winners. That's 1 in 8 that are truly keepers. If you're really good, you can maybe hit 1 in 4, but either way, why process all your images if you're only going to use a quarter of them at most?


I output the results as JPEGS, and then open the files in Photoshop Elements for cropping, levels, and Unsharp Mask if needed.

Again, the common theme is that you're using JPEG as your file format throughout your workflow. Every time you save a file as a JPEG, you're throwing away image data because of the lossy compression algorithms. On top of that, JPEG is an 8-bit per pixel data format. That's 256 possible shades of red, green, or blue. Not only is that a quarter of the precision of the original 4096 possible shades for each colour in the 12-bit data from the sensor, you're not giving your editing program much help by limiting the available precision of its working space. It's like limiting yourself to 1 decimal place when doing hardcore math. Use TIFF for your workflow and save the JPEG conversion for the end.


My results are OK, but still noisy. Because I only have the 200mm on the long end, I often have to crop out maybe 50% of the available pixels which really hurts!

That's a very significant impact. One can only do so much with better post-processing.


Working in RAW is possible for me, but I wonder about the additional working time for RAW. As it is, in a weekend I may shoot four or five events and have as many as 1200 - 1600 images to work.

Yes, valid point. My suggestion is to shoot RAW + JPEG. Sort through the JPEGs and tag only those keepers that are worthy of post-processing from the RAW files. That way, you only really need to work with 150-200 images if you're being selective.


Would I be better off capturing in RAW, using Capture NX to convert to TIFF, and then run Noise Ninja? I could save the outputs from Ninja as JPEGS.

1. Capture in RAW
2. Open using Capture NX and perform global exposure, WB, saturation, and tonal curve adjustments
3. Convert to 16-bit uncompressed TIFF and run Noise Ninja (but do selective / local NR... this allows you to use more NR where it's needed, and less where it will adversely impact detail)
4. Send it back to Capture NX as 16-bit TIFF
5. Continue with local adjustments in CNX
6. Resize
7. Local USM (because global USM accentuates noise everywhere)
8. Then save as JPEG

[Rooz]

thanks for the tips. :)

[fionndruinne]

Noise!!!

Heh. I took advantage of the good weather to get some sunset photos on the shore, and underexposed to get the highlights. Great, except that I forgot to check my ISO, which was 800 most of the time (with NR off). Grr!

I'll just have to go back tomorrow.

[Esoterra]

Okay, let's stop right there. Available light and shutter speed are at a premium for night sports. You're already doing the right thing by using 1600 ISO and a fast 2.8 lens.



Okay, now here is where you could use some improvement "at the source". Here are some suggestions right off the bat:

1. Unless there is a specific reason why (like you shoot continuous bursts of 5-10 in a row and the RAW files clog up your buffer), you should be shooting RAW + JPEG. Why? Because shooting RAW is like getting another stop of speed with the ability to preserve more detail and retain less noise for any given level of exposure.

JPEG files out of the camera have already been processed to (a) reduce noise, (b) increase sharpness, (c) downconverted from 12-bits of information per pixel to 8-bits per pixel, and (d) compressed (using lossy compression) to reduce space. All of these steps throw out tonal and subtle colour data and obliterate the original pixel structure. Bottom line, you're not left with much to work with when it comes to post-processing. Once you've thrown away tonal data and pixel structure, it's gone forever. It's like always working with a photocopy instead of the original document.

2. If you insist on using JPEGs, unless you are going to use the JPEGs straight out of the camera, you should use the minumum sharpening so that you can preserve more of the original pixel data for use in post-processing. Sharpening, like NR, is a destructive action that changes the structure at the pixel level. When that happens before you even get to post-processing, you're always starting "from behind in the count" to use a baseball analogy.



Is there a reason why you NR ALL your files? The reason I ask is to make a point... because if you're like most sports shooters, you probably shoot lots of pics and play the numbers game. You take a lot of shots and hope that maybe half of your pics are technically acceptable (i.e, not blurry, proper focus and exposure, framing), and a quarter of those are actually winners. That's 1 in 8 that are truly keepers. If you're really good, you can maybe hit 1 in 4, but either way, why process all your images if you're only going to use a quarter of them at most?



Again, the common theme is that you're using JPEG as your file format throughout your workflow. Every time you save a file as a JPEG, you're throwing away image data because of the lossy compression algorithms. On top of that, JPEG is an 8-bit per pixel data format. That's 256 possible shades of red, green, or blue. Not only is that a quarter of the precision of the original 4096 possible shades for each colour in the 12-bit data from the sensor, you're not giving your editing program much help by limiting the available precision of its working space. It's like limiting yourself to 1 decimal place when doing hardcore math. Use TIFF for your workflow and save the JPEG conversion for the end.



That's a very significant impact. One can only do so much with better post-processing.



Yes, valid point. My suggestion is to shoot RAW + JPEG. Sort through the JPEGs and tag only those keepers that are worthy of post-processing from the RAW files. That way, you only really need to work with 150-200 images if you're being selective.



1. Capture in RAW
2. Open using Capture NX and perform global exposure, WB, saturation, and tonal curve adjustments
3. Convert to 16-bit uncompressed TIFF and run Noise Ninja (but do selective / local NR... this allows you to use more NR where it's needed, and less where it will adversely impact detail)
4. Send it back to Capture NX as 16-bit TIFF
5. Continue with local adjustments in CNX
6. Resize
7. Local USM (because global USM accentuates noise everywhere)
8. Then save as JPEG

EDawg, what are your thoughts on using Sharpening (under Camera Adjustments in NX) vs. UnSharp Mask? Also, what settings (radius, Threshold, ammount) when using USM?

[e_dawg]

But won't I have to convert to TIFF first - before I export? That conversion process (I think) blows away all the cool Nikon NEF data. Then, when it gets imported back into NX - while the image may indeed be less noisy - it's not a NEF anymore, and some of the Nikon-exclusive NX functionality is lost (and Lightroom gains some points on my evaluation scale).

I would do all these "NEF/NX specific" adjustments (except for sharpening, which should be set to None or Low) at the beginning along with all your other global adjustments like exposure, WB, curves, etc. before exporting as a TIFF.

Mind you, I think you are overestimating the exclusivity and importance of these "NEF/NX specific" adjustments. The only thing that is truly unique to Capture NX and NEF files is how the RAW sensor data is reconstructed as an RGB image.

[e_dawg]

EDawg, what are your thoughts on using Sharpening (under Camera Adjustments in NX) vs. UnSharp Mask? Also, what settings (radius, Threshold, ammount) when using USM?

Good questions Esoterra. Not sure about the exact differences between sharpening vs USM. I might worry that sharpening is done before other actions since it is listed under Camera Adjustments, but presumably, the NLE nature of CNX could allow it to be done at the end. Just to be safe, i would not rely on the sharpening setting as a substitute for USM at the end of a workflow, where it should be. I really wish Nikon /nik would document things like that.

In any event, I would set Sharpening to None or Low, especially if you want to export it to NN or another program.

As for USM settings, it depends on the size/resolution of the file, the spatial frequency of the details in the image, lens softness, camera shake, motion blur, amount of noise present, micro contrast, etc. IMO, a good starting point is 30-60 for Amount, 5-8 for Radius, and 0-8 for Threshold.

[XaiLo]

"The "unsharp" of the name derives from the fact that the technique uses a blurred, or "unsharp", positive to create a "mask" of the original image. The unsharped mask is then combined with the negative, creating the illusion that the resulting image is sharper than the original."

[Esoterra]

I'm going to have to play devils advocate here. I'm sorry, but I just cant get past how clunky and counter intuitive NX is compared to Lightroom. Having to open each file from the browser as well as wait for ever for the files to save. I tried batch editing but it seriously takes FOREVER. Granted I have a 2 year old PC with only 2GB ram, but it shouldn't be this slow. I find that a much more effective way to post process is shoot RAW in NORMAL Mode on my D200, import into Lightroom, pick the keepers, make any adjustments necessary, and then save as TIFF- then open the TIFFS in NX to apply USM and then batch edit to JPG. I know we all have our own working styles, but IMHO, NX is WAY behind the curve as far as user friendliness and speed.

[cvicisso]

...shoot RAW in NORMAL Mode on my D200, import into Lightroom, pick the keepers, make any adjustments necessary, and then save as TIFF- then open the TIFFS in NX to apply USM and then batch edit to JPG...
Esotera - thanks for the advice. Is there a reason to keep NX in the loop at all (using your method)? Can Lightroom not handle the USM stuff? I too am finding NX a bit awkward (about 2 weeks left on my free trial), but haven't tried Lightroom yet.

[rawpaw18]

Download the Lightroom trial, you will find it very user friendly and much faster than NX, I bought Lightroom after trying both.

[e_dawg]

I found CNX very slow when I first got it, but that was version 1.0 and 1.1. After updating to 1.2, I find CNX much faster. Still could be faster, but speed is not an issue anymore unless you have a bunch of NEF files open concurrently sucking up a lot of RAM.

[Esoterra]

Lightroom does NOT read any in-camera adjustments you take (sharpness, saturation, Contrast)- Lightroom only reads the raw data itself. So shooting in Normal mode will create consitancy between what you see on your LCD and your computer screen when using Lightroom. I abhor Lightroom's sharpening tools. They don't work worth crap in my opinion, so that is what I use NX as the last step of my PP. The batch editing is very slow, but I can set it and forget it!

[Esoterra]

I reformatted my computer today, and NX works a whole lot faster- but it still is still very slow for work flow purposes.