 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006RANT - Nikon bundled software.
Bear with me ... this will soon be over. I decided it was time to install the software that was included with my fine Nikon product. Picture Project was first. All went well, then Norton Antivirus pops up a window about a malicious script. Ok. Reboot the computer. Start Picture Perfect. Ugh. More ugh. Nope, did not like it. Next. Nikon Capture 4.2 next. First of all, right off the bat, its incompatible with the raw files from my camera!! Ok, download the upgrade. So now it sort of works. Clumsy. Never really got it to do much of anything. INTO THE BIT BUCKET. ALL OF IT. Sent a Nastygram to Nikon, telling them to stick to cameras and leave software to others. I think I will stick with Photoshop. There, I feel much better. Was it good for you too? Nikon Capture v4.4 is actually a very good RAW converter.... Installer is not the best - neither is having to install updates incrementally one by one... Once you get used to its interface its OK to V.Good. Guy > Bear with me ... this will soon be over. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > There, I feel much better. Was it good for you too? It seems to produce good raw conversions but it is slow, awkward and I just don't like it. Camera companies should not try to sell software! Good rant Rudy. > Nikon Capture v4.4 is actually a very good RAW converter.... > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >>There, I feel much better. Was it good for you too? > It seems to produce good raw conversions but it is slow, awkward and I > just don't like it. Camera companies should not try to sell software! When I open an image in Capture it reads all the in-camera settings for White Balance, WB adjustments, Sharpening, Tone Comp, Exposure Compensation, Colour Mode, and Saturation (and hue adjustment). If I open a NEF file in another raw converter I'm not sure it will "recognise" all these settings from the camera. Also if I "tweak" a setting using Capture's slider controls I get an immediate realtime *full screen* preview wheras other converters have a smaller "preview" window. >Also if I "tweak" a setting using Capture's slider controls I get an >immediate realtime *full screen* preview wheras other converters have a >smaller "preview" window. I have used NC from time to time, but have no idea what "other converters" you are talking about here. The real time effects are shown on the full size images in ACR and RSE. You can scale and zoom the windows to an size you desire. -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) > It seems to produce good raw conversions but it is slow, awkward and I > just don't like it. Camera companies should not try to sell software! Nikon does just fine. I like their cameras and I like their software too. >>It seems to produce good raw conversions but it is slow, awkward and I >>just don't like it. Camera companies should not try to sell software! > > Nikon does just fine. With their cameras and lenses. > I like their cameras and I like their software too. Wow, you lost a lot of credibility there. Now I'm glad I didn't read more than your first couple of posts in the "Photographers-Do you..." thread. I doubt you contributed anything worthwhile there. Greg  Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>It seems to produce good raw conversions but it is slow, awkward and I >>>just don't like it. Camera companies should not try to sell software! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than your first couple of posts in the "Photographers-Do you..." thread. > I doubt you contributed anything worthwhile there. Based on the fact I like Nikon software? You were probably wise not to read more than you did. No point wasting your time reading what you're too dim to understood. [ . . . ] > You were probably wise not to read more than you did. No point wasting > your time reading what you're too dim to understood. <ahem> understand. > [ . . . ] > >>You were probably wise not to read more than you did. No point wasting >>your time reading what you're too dim to understood. > > <ahem> understand. No worries, I'm not one to pick on typos, poor grammar or poor spelling, yes, but not obvious typos. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > Bear with me ... this will soon be over. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > There, I feel much better. Was it good for you too? Phase One's RAW Capture One is great RAW image workflow software. My only wish is that the whitebalance and exposure tabs be combined to one. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> Bear with me ... this will soon be over. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Phase One's RAW Capture One is great RAW image workflow software. My only > wish is that the whitebalance and exposure tabs be combined to one. to me, RSE, capture one, nikon raw, in that order. RSE does almost everything perfectly. According to Rudy Benner <bit_bucket@rudybenner.com>: > Bear with me ... this will soon be over. > > I decided it was time to install the software that was included with my fine > Nikon product. [ ... ] > INTO THE BIT BUCKET. ALL OF IT. > > Sent a Nastygram to Nikon, telling them to stick to cameras and leave > software to others. I think I will stick with Photoshop. Well ... since I use Unix based computers instead of Windows or Macs (well Macs are *sort of* unix based, but it is hidden), the software from Nikon does not do anything for me anyway. For that matter, Photoshop also is not a choice on unix. But I find that I am quite happy with the combination of xv, ImageMagik, and "the GIMP", with the last of those used for serious image manipulation. And I used dcraw for processing raw images into something which "the GIMP" can work on. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- Why do you only rant on Nikon? Norton is deserving of more than a few rants: slow, resource hog, screws up many program installations, can be impossible to uninstall and best of all was recently shown to have a bug that can easily allow a malicious web site to take over your computer without you even having to click on anything! All for $69.95! According to bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com>: > Why do you only rant on Nikon? Probably because he is restricting himself to discussing software on-topic in this newsgroup. No doubt, other camera makers also have some turkeys of software, but he probably has not experience them. :-) > Norton is deserving of more than a few rants: slow, resource hog, screws up > many program installations, can be impossible to uninstall and best of all > was recently shown to have a bug that can easily allow a malicious web site > to take over your computer without you even having to click on anything! > All for $69.95! Yet another program which I can't (and have no need to) run. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com>: >> Why do you only rant on Nikon? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. OH? So you run with out a firewall? The first successful attack on an NT computer was done from a compromised Unix system, well actually a few Unix systems. ;) According to RW+/- <eat@joes.place>: > > According to bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com>: > >> Why do you only rant on Nikon? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Yet another program which I can't (and have no need to) run. [ ... ] > OH? So you run with out a firewall? I never said that, and I *do* use a firewall for most of my systems. (Some do have to be outside the firewall.) However, Norton will not run on my hardware and my OS choices, so the question is moot. Who ever said that norton was the only firewall around? It is not even a particularly *good* firewall. (The same can be said of running any firewall on the same hardware which it is trying to protect. On Windows systems, quite a few of the viruses (if you are unfortunate enough to click on one with something like Outlook Express or Internet Explorer), as one of their first actions, turn off Norton (and several of the other firewalls which co-exist with the application programs.) > The first successful attack on an NT computer was done from a compromised > Unix system, well actually a few Unix systems. ;) It *is* possible to poorly administer unix systems as well as Windows boxes. However, I try to do a reasonable job of keeping my systems tight. And I make it a practice to make most of the externally-visible systems ones based on OpenBSD, which probably has the tightest security out of the box of any of the free unix flavors. It also comes with the makings of an excellent firewall, "pf". Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to RW+/- <eat@joes.place>: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > systems. (Some do have to be outside the firewall.) However, Norton > will not run on my hardware and my OS choices, so the question is moot. Heh, it was worth the ribbing. ;) I don't run symantec crap ever, and refer away from it for many reasons. > Who ever said that norton was the only firewall around? It is > not even a particularly *good* firewall. (The same can be said of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Explorer), as one of their first actions, turn off Norton (and several > of the other firewalls which co-exist with the application programs.) Only for people who are not active in protecting their personal computers. >> The first successful attack on an NT computer was done from a compromised >> Unix system, well actually a few Unix systems. ;) > > It *is* possible to poorly administer unix systems as well as > Windows boxes. However, I try to do a reasonable job of keeping my > systems tight. Oh yes, and there are plenty effectively open systems around. Just wait a week or two and what was locked down yesterday may very well be opened today. > And I make it a practice to make most of the externally-visible > systems ones based on OpenBSD, which probably has the tightest security > out of the box of any of the free unix flavors. It also comes with the > makings of an excellent firewall, "pf". I've run many NT systems in the wild without incident as well, not saying that I recommend NT+ over other OS systems. It all depends on the admin. I do love tar pits. :) > I don't run symantec crap ever, and refer away from it for many reasons. Although Symantec sells versions of their products for OS X, they do not tell you that their products generate frequent kernel panics. And they will not refund your money, either. I think the only people who buy Symantec's software for OS X are Mac newbies such as myself who think they need the same protection their Windows computers had (and we didn't know that our Windows computers were not really protected). > > Who ever said that norton was the only firewall around? It is > > not even a particularly *good* firewall. (The same can be said of > > running any firewall on the same hardware which it is trying to protect. Our hardware firewall used by the Church can be really annoying sometimes, particularly in the way it blocks VOIP. But mostly I would give just about anything for a decent DSL line. The one here in Laoag City is slow and noisy. > Although Symantec sells versions of their products for OS X, they do > not tell you that their products generate frequent kernel panics. As a software developer, let me assure you that if the OSX kernel panics, it's Apple's fault, not Symantec's. Nothing (no matter how evil or stupid) an application does should be able to crash the kernel. If the kernel crashes, it's a kernel bug, by definition. That being said, I don't run any kind of anti-virus on my OSX boxes. The only windows box I use is the one my employer forces me to, and I let their IT department worry about keeping that disaster zone alive. > > Although Symantec sells versions of their products for OS X, they do > > not tell you that their products generate frequent kernel panics. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an application does should be able to crash the kernel. If the kernel > crashes, it's a kernel bug, by definition. unless it installs a kernel extension, which i believe symantec does. > As a software developer, let me assure you that if the OSX kernel panics, > it's Apple's fault, not Symantec's. Nothing (no matter how evil or stupid) > an application does should be able to crash the kernel. If the kernel > crashes, it's a kernel bug, by definition. Not if the "application" installs a kernel extension, which I believe Symantec does, and I know Nikon does, too. Which is totally unacceptable and a very good reason alone not to run that software. Nikon Capture should *never* be installed on any system; it does significant damage to the operating system with its kernel module and background processes and modification of system files which it does not un-do when uninstalled. Symantec's software, too, is of no benefit and causes nothing but problems. > That being said, I don't run any kind of anti-virus on my OSX boxes. The > only windows box I use is the one my employer forces me to, and I let their > IT department worry about keeping that disaster zone alive. Eww, you let IT wonks touch your computers? How do you manage to get your work done? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I don't run symantec crap ever, and refer away from it for many reasons. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think they need the same protection their Windows computers had (and we > didn't know that our Windows computers were not really protected). For quite a time, maybe a couple years I ran no virus protection for my NT machines. It was not necessary and took a while for people to find a way in. The same can be said about OSx, etc. As to firewalls, they are very important to any OS, yet firewalls can be cracked, hacked or otherwise disabled. My guess is if you took Symantec products off your systems it would still have kernel panics, just not as frequently. >>> Who ever said that norton was the only firewall around? It is >>> not even a particularly *good* firewall. (The same can be said of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > give just about anything for a decent DSL line. The one here in Laoag > City is slow and noisy. Heh, there is satellite available. Is VOIP blocked intentionally? or just due to ports blocking. You might want to talk to your admin about this, the use of VOIP dramatically reduces costs. > Why do you only rant on Nikon? > Norton is deserving of more than a few rants: slow, resource hog, screws up > many program installations, can be impossible to uninstall and best of all > was recently shown to have a bug that can easily allow a malicious web site > to take over your computer without you even having to click on anything! > All for $69.95! And if after you initially install it there is a problem they will gladly help you for 29.99 each instance. Great warranty eh? > Bear with me ... this will soon be over. > > I decided it was time to install the software that was included with my > fine Nikon product. > > Picture Project was first. All went well, then Norton Antivirus pops up a Oh, Norton. Pfffbbbttt! > window about a malicious script. Ok. Reboot the computer. Start Picture > Perfect. Ugh. More ugh. Nope, did not like it. I like Picture Project for what it is. It's not high end, full-featured image editing software and it's not intended to be. It's an easy-to-use software package that (at least 1.6.1, the current version) does what it does very well. My sister who isn't at all technical about cameras uses it with her little Coolpix and loves it -- and she's exactly the sort of user it was designed for. > Next. Nikon Capture 4.2 next. First of all, right off the bat, its > incompatible with the raw files from my camera!! Ok, download the upgrade. > So now it sort of works. Clumsy. Never really got it to do much of > anything. > > INTO THE BIT BUCKET. ALL OF IT. That's what you should have done with the Norton software, I think. I stopped using all Symantec products a few years ago and have never been happier. At least you got a free trial with the Nikon software. As far as I'm concerned Nikon Capture 4.4 is fine, and I like it a lot. It has capabilities other software does not -- for example it will transform my Nikon 10.5mm fisheye pix into rectilinear, making that essentially a dual- or triple-function lens. I like Capture's vignette control too. > Sent a Nastygram to Nikon, telling them to stick to cameras and leave > software to others. I hope they have more sense than to pay any attention to such ingratitude and complaining. Maybe I'll send them a nicegram telling them how much I like their software. > I think I will stick with Photoshop. Huh? Neither Picture Project nor Nikon Capture is intended to compete with Photoshop, and they are not mutually exclusive by any means. Nikon Capture even asks during installation if you're going to use it with Photoshop. > There, I feel much better. Was it good for you too? Not much. > Bear with me ... this will soon be over. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > window about a malicious script. Ok. Reboot the computer. Start Picture > Perfect. Ugh. More ugh. Nope, did not like it. Hmmph. PictureProject is marginal even on a Mac, where you don't have to have antivirus software. You are better off with Picassa 2. It is free, does the most common things well, and is easy to use. Of if you have a Mac use iPhoto. I do not understand how PictureProject hopes to compete with either of these two programs. Most people around here seem to prefer Nikon View, which you can download off their web site. I have never used it myself, since I can't see that it does anything that I can't do with Bridge or Aperture or iPhoto or any of a dozen other viewer programs that I already have. > Next. Nikon Capture 4.2 next. First of all, right off the bat, its > incompatible with the raw files from my camera!! Ok, download the upgrade. > So now it sort of works. Clumsy. Never really got it to do much of anything. The bundled version of Capture is only trialware anyway. Nevertheless, it is worth buying the full copy despite its numerous quirks and deficiencies. Nikon knows better than anyone else how to interpret NEF files and Capture can do amazing things with shadows and highlights that would take hours of work in Photoshop. Besides, if you ever get the 10.5mm fish eye DX lens, Capture can do things with it in an instant that are quite a bit of trouble with Photoshop. I am waiting to see the new version of Capture NX. They say it is a complete re-write.? >> Bear with me ... this will soon be over. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have a Mac use iPhoto. I do not understand how PictureProject hopes to > compete with either of these two programs. Well, PictureProject comes free with every Nikon, so "compete with [another free program]" doesn't seem quite appropriate. The typical buyer of a point-and-shoot Coolpix probably isn't going to search the Internet for better software to use with it, and PP 1.6.1 in my experience is trouble-free, works well and has some worthwhile special features such as D-lighting. I have Picasa 2 as well, and that's fine too, but I don't see how the ordinary Coolpix user is "better off" with it. I understand PP 1.0 was problematical in some areas (what 1.0 isn't?), but the current version seems fine to me. > Most people around here seem to prefer Nikon View, which you can > download off their web site. I have never used it myself, since I can't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the 10.5mm fish eye DX lens, Capture can do things with it in an > instant that are quite a bit of trouble with Photoshop. Just so. Especially for anyone with the 10.5, it's almost foolish *not* to have Capture. > I am waiting to see the new version of Capture NX. They say it is a > complete re-write.? I'm looking forward to trying it myself. I hope there's a trial version. > Well, PictureProject comes free with every Nikon, so "compete with > [another free program]" doesn't seem quite appropriate. The typical buyer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was problematical in some areas (what 1.0 isn't?), but the current version > seems fine to me. I found that Picture Project and Nikon View were pretty similar, but the main thing that bugged me with PP was that there was no file explorer. The only way I seemed to be able to browse my files was to "import" them into a "collection" but I prefer to have each collection in a specific folder on my C drive, which is the way that Nikon View works. Both programs have a handy feature of being able to automatically download your files from the camera when you connect it via USB, and they sync the cameras clock at the same time. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.