Nikon View vs Picture Project vs Nikon Capture

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:24:31 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>Can anyone give me a brief description of the differences between these
>programs? I think Nikon Capture is the $99 program you can buy. If not,
>please substitute the correct software name.

See
http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-b [...] PTE*&p_li=

and


http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-b [...] ZT0x&p_li=
for current versions available.

If the choice is between the two free versions, PP and NV, it's a no
brainer for me, NV.
Capture allows batch processing of NEF, more controls to process, the
ability to upload custom curves to the D70 and remote control of the
camera.

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

For the same price you can get PS Elements 3 with support for raw images and
a full image processing program.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <y5Odnad5zrgUJGbcRVn-rg@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net>
wrote:

> The photoshop plugin is very very cool for RAW conversion but as
> mentioned, I think you need the latest $$ photoshop.

All you need for RAW is the inexpensive Photoshop Elements 3.

Merritt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

> Does that mean PS Elements will open and process NEF files?

Yes, it uses the same converter as the full Photoshop.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10vr5iu92sff4eb@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>> Does that mean PS Elements will open and process NEF files?
>
>Yes, it uses the same converter as the full Photoshop.

No it doesn't.

Or, at least, it doesn't give you as much control over the process
as the interface in full Photoshop does. The interface in Elements
is much closer to the interface in previous versions of Photoshop;
the new interface in Photoshop CS has far more adjustments available.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10vt5dj98hrruad@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, it uses the same converter as the full Photoshop.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>Bah, sorry. I'd have sworn I read that it did.

Well, as I said, it sort of does. The latest Adobe Camera Raw
update (version 2.4) is for both Photoshop CS and Elements 3.0
But if you use it through Elements you don't get access to all
the controls you get in Photoshop CS; effectively you only get
to use a lot of the settings at their default values.
That's generally the idea behind Elements. It uses many of the
same algorithms, etc., as Photoshop CS, but with a simplified
interface (sacrificing some control in favour of ease-of-use).

It's still a good replacement for most of the proprietary RAW
file converters - I bought Elements just so I could get access
to Adobe Camera Raw (I have a Pentax *ist-D, and the supplied
RAW converter leaves a lot to be desired). But I've also seen
how much additional control there is at RAW conversion time in
full Photoshop CS (upsizing and applying your own tone curves,
amongst other things).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Didn't Elements replace Photoshop LE in the product lineup?


In article <Zb2dnQiLt5qbWGPcRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>What about Photoshop LE?
>
>
>"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ctm6r3$16e$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <10vt5dj98hrruad@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>>John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, it uses the same converter as the full Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>
>>>Bah, sorry. I'd have sworn I read that it did.
>>
>> Well, as I said, it sort of does. The latest Adobe Camera Raw
>> update (version 2.4) is for both Photoshop CS and Elements 3.0
>> But if you use it through Elements you don't get access to all
>> the controls you get in Photoshop CS; effectively you only get
>> to use a lot of the settings at their default values.
>> That's generally the idea behind Elements. It uses many of the
>> same algorithms, etc., as Photoshop CS, but with a simplified
>> interface (sacrificing some control in favour of ease-of-use).
>>
>> It's still a good replacement for most of the proprietary RAW
>> file converters - I bought Elements just so I could get access
>> to Adobe Camera Raw (I have a Pentax *ist-D, and the supplied
>> RAW converter leaves a lot to be desired). But I've also seen
>> how much additional control there is at RAW conversion time in
>> full Photoshop CS (upsizing and applying your own tone curves,
>> amongst other things).
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

My point is that there isn't a "Photoshop LE" that corresponds
to Photoshop CS (execept inasmuch as Elements 3.0 fills that role).
And in some places (including the interface to the Raw converter)
Photoshop CS presents a very different interface to the one found
in those earlier versions.

The Camera Raw plugin for Photoshop CS/Elements 3.0 doesn't work
in those earlier versions of Photoshop, either. You can use most
plugins built for Photoshop 7 in Photoshop CS, but not vice versa.


In article <ybKdnbayJf8yn2LcRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ctmoj5$b3v$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> Didn't Elements replace Photoshop LE in the product lineup?
>>
>
>Yes it did, but I found that Photoshop LE looks and feels exactly like
>Photoshop. Just missing some high-end features. If you can use one you can
>use the other.
>
>
>> In article <Zb2dnQiLt5qbWGPcRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
>> Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>>What about Photoshop LE?
>>>
>>>
>>>"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ctm6r3$16e$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> In article <10vt5dj98hrruad@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>>>>John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it uses the same converter as the full Photoshop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bah, sorry. I'd have sworn I read that it did.
>>>>
>>>> Well, as I said, it sort of does. The latest Adobe Camera Raw
>>>> update (version 2.4) is for both Photoshop CS and Elements 3.0
>>>> But if you use it through Elements you don't get access to all
>>>> the controls you get in Photoshop CS; effectively you only get
>>>> to use a lot of the settings at their default values.
>>>> That's generally the idea behind Elements. It uses many of the
>>>> same algorithms, etc., as Photoshop CS, but with a simplified
>>>> interface (sacrificing some control in favour of ease-of-use).
>>>>
>>>> It's still a good replacement for most of the proprietary RAW
>>>> file converters - I bought Elements just so I could get access
>>>> to Adobe Camera Raw (I have a Pentax *ist-D, and the supplied
>>>> RAW converter leaves a lot to be desired). But I've also seen
>>>> how much additional control there is at RAW conversion time in
>>>> full Photoshop CS (upsizing and applying your own tone curves,
>>>> amongst other things).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>