Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Thoughts on data management workflow kindly requested


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Hello everybody,

 
There’s something I’m currently struggling with (even though I have read a few threads here) and where I could use some opinions and/or personal experience from you. The subject I’m talking about is the data management and to some part the processing workflow side of photography. I’m taking these two processes together as for me they are at least partly linked to each other or at least for my current topic here.
 
Before getting to the actual point(s), I think I have some explaining to do. So first up, what I’m dealing with.
 
Stock:
* a couple of thousand „old“ pictures from (group) holidays, family events, etc. Taken with many different cameras (mostly point & shoot; not all my own), in many different resolutions, almost exclusively available as JPG. Add to this a couple of scanned pictures, also JPGs.
 
* a couple of thousand „newer“ pictures taken with my D3100 in NEF/RAW; some of them taken in the Adobe RGB color space, but most of them in the default sRGB color space (not sure if this even matters).
 
* a couple of hundreds „newer“ pictures taken with a Nikon AW110, available as JPGs.
 
* a handful of iPad pictures as JPGs.
 
 
New pictures will be:
* more NEFs/RAWs with the D3100 at 4608x3072 px / 3:2; (or maybe another DSLR sometime in the future; most likely a Nikon)
* more JPGs with the AW110 at 4608x3456 px / 4:3
* more JPGs with the iPad at 2592x1936 px / 4:3 (almost)
(* maybe in the future also smart phone pictures, who knows)
 
 
 
Output:
I very rarely print pictures (maybe once a year a calendar, but that’s about it). I.e. the pictures are most of the time viewed on screens. Either on 1920x1080 monitor displays or on the above mentioned iPad (2048x1536 pixel).
 
Due to the fact of having viewed the pictures mostly on TV displays, I used to crop most of my exposures to the 16:9 aspect ratio and converted them to 1920x1080 pixel JPGs during export. Obviously this is not a perfect solution for the iPad display with it’s aspect ratio of 4:3 and higher resolution (and often enough it’s not helpful for the composition, either, but that’s a different topic).
 
 
Viewing situations:
* on the computer (1920x1080)
* on the TV (1920x1080)
* on the iPad (2592x1936)
 
The feed to the TV is handled with Apple’s Photos App and an Apple TV Gen. 3, the feed to the iPad with the Photos App and a local sync with iTunes.
 
 
What I have been doing for the last couple of years:
* Copy the images from the respective camera to a local folder on my computer
* Import the images to Lightroom 4
* Sort, tag (sluggishly), process and arrange the images in an album in LR4
* Move the originals via LR4 from the import folder to another location on the hard drive („archive folder“).
* Export the images to the file system as JPGs (even if they came as JPGs)
* Manually move the images of the series to a new folder in the file system
* Make extra copies of a few images to be used as desktop and screensaver pictures (I keep those in separate folders from which the operating system randomly picks images)
* Import with copying of the images to iPhoto to make them available in iTunes and the Apple TV
 
=> especially the latter part consumes/consumed a whole lot of storage space as I had everything in triplicates (the original import, a copy in the file system, a copy in iPhoto)
 
Therefore I recently switched to Apple’s replacement for iPhoto, the Photos App and re-imported everything into a new library, but this time without copying the files again. They are just linked to the location on the hard drive. But due to the preview pictures generated by the Photos App and its face recognition function, the library is still a big file (about 10 GB for 10.000 fotos).
 
 
As you have probably guessed by now, I’m not really happy with the overall situation.
 
 
So, my current plan is to switch to the following:
* Copy the pictures from the cameras to the hard drive 
* Import to LR4
* Sort, tag (!), process, arrange in an album
* Move originals to archive
* Export JPGs to file system
* Import JPGs with making copies to Photos App
* Delete the export files from the file system
* Use the tags from LR4 in Photos to automatically fill smart albums for use as desktop/screensaver pictures
 
 
Advantages: 
* a lot of disc space saved
* option to delete / re-sort in Photos without having to repeat the process manually in the file system
 
Disadvantages:
* Still redundant data for all JPGs (originals and the material that ends up in the Photos App)
* Depends on LR’s continued ability to generate tags which can be interpreted by the Photos App
 
 
Added difficulty:
Since I’ve been made aware that LR’s raw converter maybe isn’t really the go-to-tool in terms of quality, I’m wondering if I should switch to another application.
 
I’ve taken a quick look at a few webpages (Capture NX-D, PhotoNinja, Phocus, DxO) so far, but up to now I haven’t found one that features the same amount of data management tools and processing tools in one application (or I missed it on the webpage). I.e. I might have to split my current workflow into smaller sub-processes (separate the management from the processing). As I understand it that’s the way quite a few photographers follow, but currently I have no real idea how I could implement such a solution to cover my requirements, without making things more complicated than they already are. I’ve seen one application mentioned as a replacement for LR a few times, which is named Darktable, but I haven’t tried this out yet.
 
Another thing is that I really like the presets included in LR to perform lens corrections. I know that there are other applications which let you define your own profiles, but with my skill level I don’t see that happening any time soon.
 
 
Wrap up:
Since I’m ready to upgrade my software anyway - I’ve been meaning to switch to LR6 - I might as well switch to another option out there. I’m just a bit stumped what my next move should be. I don’t know if it’s of great relevance, but I’m using an iMac (mid 2011) with OS X 10.11.5 („El Capitan“).
 
The number of incoming exposures varies quite a bit. Most of the time I only have a few dozen fresh images to manage at a time, but after two weeks of traveling it might as well be 2000 or 3000 exposures that need to be handled.
 
Also, I'm ready to go through most of my pictures again - even manually -  to implement a new workflow and correct some mistakes of the past at the same time. This will take a lot of time, but I don't mind to invest some time on many weekends and eventually I will get there.
 
If you have any comments or ideas about all of this or feel like sharing your experience, I’d be happy to read about it. If I skipped any vital/relevant information, I’ll gladly supply it.
 
And thank you for sticking with my ramblings up to this point.
 


#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

As you have read, I use PhotoMechanic for DAM. Keywords and other IPTC carry over to photos or iPhoto as they are stored in the jpg or tif. Stars and colour tags do not. The keywords are searchable with Spotlight as well, so finding stray jpgs is easy. From what I have seen, PhotoMechanic is the only alternative to LR for a fully standards-compliant DAM now that Aperture is no more.

The advantages of PM is that it is very fast to work with and that you can use any raw converter you like for the processing. Yesterday, I shot a little over 800 frames of a flash mob dancing to Wuthering Heights. I had them ingested, keyworded and rated ready for processing in about 25 minutes after I got home. 

 

When it comes to choosing processing software, download trial versions of one or two at a time and reprocess files you have done in LR previously to see if the results differ and if you like the new interpretations. For PhotoNinja, there is no full trial version as such, but you can request a two-week trial key from Picturecode to evaluate it.



#3
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Meanwhile I've taken a somewhat closer look at PhotoMechanic's webpage - especially the screenshots of the software - and I have to say, I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the options there.

 

This might be partly due to not being overly familiar with all the photographic vocabulary in English or my general lack of knowledge what I should want with all those options in the first place, but it seems that PM is a software that initially requires quite a bit of reading/watching manuals and tutorials. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing per se. I'm just wondering if this will be a problem for me, when I don't use the software often or extensively enough. I.e. I don't want to set my self up to having to do the learning over and over again to theoretically speed up the culling and tagging part of my processing workflow.

 

Probably I should just give it a try to find out if it's just the first impression that seems rather complicated or if this goes away once you see how the software actually (re)acts.

 

The description and praise on PhotoNinja's site is very tempting. But maybe it's just good marketing on their part. So, yeah, I think I will have to give this one a try as well.

 

Whereas DxO's page is really not making things easier for a potential customer. I've looked at their products and product packages and I have no clue what I get for money. In one of the packages they even list the same software module twice. If they can't even get that point across, I have my doubts about the usability of the software.

 

In one article I found Nikon's ViewNX-i as a potential alternative to PhotoMechanic. But if this is as fast and stable as Nikon's ViewNX 2, I can't really imagine it's an alternative for basically anything (in my experience ViewNX 2 doesn't work very well).



#4
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

PM might be a hassle to set up at the start, but once you have your ingestion settings, stationery pad(s) and your basic structured keywords panel in place, it just works. If you are familiar with Peter Krogh's The DAM book, it helps. Having read the IPTC handbook is a great help as well as PM is fully IPTC compliant, unlike LR. 

 

I thought that it would be much more difficult to get going than it turned out to be. If you just download the software and watch the tutorials on the camerabits site, I think you will be up and running soon.

 

I am surprised at how well NX-D works after reading all the negative reports around the 'net. I am not sure about switching to PictureNinja after evaluating it for two weeks as the end results are about equal and I am not sure which I like better after living with the NX-D quirks for over 6 months. NX-D *is* quirky, but getting the results is quite fast once I placed the tool panes in a more logical way than standard.

That said, PhotoNinja is the only software I have tried that gets even close to getting as much information as NX-D from the D300, D700 and D810 NEFs I use.

 

DxO seems to work well for those that use it, you could try shooting Bart a PM and either ask for input or invite him to this thread.

 

View NX-i as a DAM solution is a joke. You can caption your photos and edit a small part of the IPTC, but as there is no way to ensure that there are no typos in the keywording, the archive will quite soon be an absolute mess.



#5
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Thanks again for the input.

 

And after your comment, I ditched NX-i straight away.

 

On the weekend, I had the chance to go through a set of roughly 1800 images (taken by a friend of mine) and have a more conscious look at my own culling and sorting process using LR. As a kind of practice, I tried to go through this set as quickly as possible (after all, the results weren't very important to me, as I wasn't dealing with exposure I took).

 

In the end it took me about 2.5 hrs to get through the initial culling process.

 

But, I have to admit that the rate limiting step here was not the speed of the software nor the availability/lack of features, it was mostly that I personally couldn't really decide what I considered a keeper and what not. I.e. I was going back and forth between similar images, having difficulties to decide, which one I liked better.

 

So, accepting that PM is a great software - and I will give it a try, on one of the next free weekends coming up - I'm not so sure, it will really be a great improvement for me personally, as this part of the post-processing isn't really my problem.

 

Currently I'm thinking that instead of turning everything upside down at the same time, it might be the more sensible approach to try out a few more ways of using the software I have and evaluate if those ways are beneficial to what I try to achieve or if they are not. Here I'm thinking mostly about the management of finalized images and the ways to present them; i.e. trying to maximize what can be done with the software included with all the Apple gear or finding substitutes for these applications.

 

From my current point of few, I'm not sure, I'll find a solution using the standard Apple tools, which will be satisfactory in terms of managing and displaying images on different devices. E.g.: you can create folders and smart folders in Apple's Fotos App, but those don't carry over (well or not at all) to the iPad or the Apple TV. Even though the applications there bear the same name. I find that pretty ridiculous for a "cosmos" that's supposed to work seamlessly. 

 

I think I have to experiment a little more and let all this stuff roll through my head for a while.

 

If it weren't for your strong recommendation, I'd have overlooked NX-D purely for its "wild" user interface. As you have mentioned, I will have to set up a small comparison of the NX-D RAW processing results versus Lightroom and see, which results I like better. After all, I could still use LR purely for data management (even if it's not its strong point) and do the RAW processing with NX-D.

 

We'll see... ("to be continued...")



#6
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

To avoid the decision block, just grade them roughly as a start, using the colours. Once you have that rough sort done, grade them finer using the stars. I think you will find quite an increase in sorting speed even if you still use LR. If you can't decide within a short time limit, pass it over for a second pass. Your mind will refresh as you don't sit staring and try to decide.

One of the great things about PM compared to LR is that you don't select what grading you want to see, you select what to hide instead. This makes it easy to just grade and the graded files turn invisible for that phase. Setting this up in LR isn't as easy, even if it isn't difficult.

 

When it comes to displaying images on different devices, does the AppleTV support an open cloud solution like Owncloud? In that case it should be possible to point it to a directory on an Owncloud server. The iOS client for Owncloud is cheap and works well for manually syncing things on your iThings.



#7
Jerry_

Jerry_

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,524 posts
  • Country Flag
While I don't use ViewNX2 for any other function then the initial culling, this works quite fine for me, for two reasons:
1/ it is the only step in the workflow where I may want to delete the file from the disk (*)
2/ a full zoom into the image can be done by normally pressing the mouse button, making it easy to verify that details are sharp, beyond what you will see when normal viewing.

*) any capture that will have passed this initial culling process will be referenced as linked file in the DAM

---------

Once this selective step passed and (links to) files having been imported in Aperture (yes, my favourite DAM is still Aperture (**) even so no longer supported by Apple I succeeded in keeping it working after migrating to El Capitan) the next steps are some basic edits, as well as a ranking using the stars (1-5, this can be easily done as the the keys on the numeric keypad can be used for this ranking).

Occasionally I use DxO prior to this step for editing the files. While DxO has given excellent results for processing it however adds extra steps in my workflow and saved files as I will then have to manage the RAW files, along with their processed JPEG files (the later being referenced in the DAM)

**) some of the forum members may remember that I migrated my complete library to Lightroom at the end of last year. However, even so trying to get familiar with it I never felt as comfortable using it as for Aperture, and be it only by the fact that it is cumbersome to integrate the output with iTunes.

----------

Some captures will get a more extensive processing, either using the edit features in Aperture, either using third party editors (f.i. the MacPhun CK collection) through the plugins.

----------

Finally captures will be keyword tagged, including one dedicated keyword for saying that for a given event (***) these are the ones to show by default

***) to mention here that my normal way of structuring the filelocations - but also the basic organisation of the library on the DAM - is to have one filedirectory by event (ex. 2016-01 Citytrip Paris, 2016-01 Birthday party, 2016-02 Photoshoot Alice) as well as one generic by month (f.i. 2016-01, 2016-02, ...) for occasional photos.
In the Aperture library any such event specific library has as a subfolder a smart album, where dynamically only captures from the main folder that respond either to a specific ranking, either have specifc keywords, are shown.

----------

As regards the output part, once the processing is finished basically only images that are in the smart albums are:

a) exported in JPEG to another disk, aimed at containing the final output for showing (on smart TV, etc.

B) synched, via iTunes, to the mobile devices (iPad)

On top of event specific albums, a couple of library wide albums also exist for f.i.
- captures taken in the last week
- captures taken during the last month
- top ranked captures
- ....

#8
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Thanks again for the information and insights.

 

This is quite a bit to take in, though, and I will need some time to experiment with some applications and find out what works best for the different parts of my personal workflow. Not only on the input-side regarding the management and processing of the original exposures, but also how to get them to the "presentation layer".

 

Regarding the latter, I'm really not all that happy with what Apple currently offers right out of the box. When syncing with the Photos-App, the folder structure of the albums is lost on the iPad. The same is true when you use the Photos App to stream the images to the Apple TV. Not being able to group albums in folders makes the whole exercise pretty pointless, though.



#9
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Adobe Photography Plan. $9.99US per month.

 

You have access to the latest versions of Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC.

 

Lightroom CC supports PC's, Macs, Android OS devices, Apple TV and iOS devices. Once syncing is activated, all your pictures are available on all your devices (as well as Lightroom for the web) at the same time. Whatever changes you make to them in any version of Lightroom are immediately applied to the same images on your other devices. The iOS and Android apps are available online (through Apple app store or Google Play {for Android devices}) as free downloads and are included as part of your plan. You can decide which photos or collections to share.

 

I use this with a Windows 7 PC, an Android pad and an Apple iPhone. It works seamlessly. You can even add photos from the camera roll on your iOS devices.

 

You already know how to use Lightroom and you've said that you like some of it's controls and features. I don't know what you're referring to when you mention sub par RAW processing but, unless you're doing extremely critical work, I doubt if you'll be dissatisfied with Lightroom's RAW processor. Also, there's something to be said for using one program (rather than a whole gaggle of programs) to catalog and process your images... at least in my opinion.

 

--Ron



#10
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

I don't know what you're referring to when you mention sub par RAW processing but, unless you're doing extremely critical work, I doubt if you'll be dissatisfied with Lightroom's RAW processor.

 

Merco_61 commented on the quality of LR's RAW processing. Looking around on the web, you can also find more reports that LR/ACR are not (always/necessarily) the right tools to get the most out of .NEF-Files. One of the reasons mentioned is that even software houses like Adobe to not get full insight into how Nikon handles raw data processing and recording in/with its proprietary .NEF-Files.

 

E.g. the site dpreview featured a three-way comparison of DxO vs. Capture One vs. LR4 back in 2013, which is still online (Raw Converter Showdown: Capture One Pro 7, DxO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4: Digital Photography Review). According to this test, LR is good at some things, but not as good in others.

 

But my work is definitely not very critical. I'm (still) a beginner level hobbyist and if I e.g. don't render every shade of color completely right in an image, it's not such a big a deal. I'm just at the point, where I'm thinking of upgrading/changing software and while I'm at it, I want to find the tool(s) most suited for what I do and try to improve on quality at the same time, if I can. Especially if there are "known issues" for some of the applications, which can be avoided.

 

Anyway, it seems I have to take a closer look at Adobe's photographers package subscription. I wasn't aware that it features more than just the two applications (LR & PS). Up to now I have always discarded this as an option for me, because I use PS very rarely and when I want to, I still have the CS4-Version on my computer. Because of that I figured 120$ a year to be too expensive, when I'm just using LR. Especially, when I can by LR6 for about the amount of a one year subscription in its "box version". 

 

But all the cross platform syncing might push that subscription in the range, where it is really worth the money (for me). So, thanks for that idea.


  • Ron likes this

#11
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Well, I'm not the one to stick up for Adobe. Heaven knows they've had their share of screwups over the years. You (and others) may well be right about occasional sub-par processing of RAW images. And, I suppose if you're looking for the absolute best quality you can muster, then it may pay to check out other alternatives. For me, personally, the advantages of having all my stuff under one roof (so to speak) has so far outweighed the quality issue. Maybe at some point I'll change my mind.

 

For a long time I resisted the Adobe hype about their Creative Cloud. It was just too much money to shell out. Especially since I no longer need all the CC applications. I even resisted the Photography Plan when it first debuted. Still too much scratch... and I hate (like many people) subscription fees for software. My first taste of Photoshop was version 2 which came in a rather large box. That's the distribution model I'm most familiar with. There's something to be said for having that solid media as a back up... not to mention a hefty manual that you could read and use at your leisure.

 

Anyway... fast forward to a year or two ago. It finally dawned on me that upgrading Lightoom each year was costing me almost as much as what I'd pay for the CC Photography plan which had dropped to $10US a month AND included Photoshop. I could no longer resist. They won. LOL

 

--Ron

 

 

 



#12
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Lightroom works for both DAM and most editing, but Photo Mechanic is much faster for DAM and NX-D and some others get more out of the files than Lightroom faster and with less work. LR isn't bad, in fact it is admirable that it does as well as it does with support for each raw format, but other, dedicated tools for each task does a better job.



#13
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Merco_61, I hear (and believe) you! I also think that it makes the most sense to use the right tools for the right job.

 

But (sorry, there had to be one), as Ron pointed out, there also merits to a solution where you have everything "under one roof". Especially since I found out today that Adobe is now also offering an app for the Apple TV 4th Gen.

(https://blogs.adobe....r-apple-tv.html)

 

With this I could actually replace my entire chain of software from exposure import to display with the Adobe photography subscription plan and get rid of Apple's in-house "solution".

 

But (hey, another one), this still doesn't prevent me from splitting my workflow into a DAM and a processing part. As I have mentioned above, in order to use Apple's software, I'm in the situation where I have to manage RAW and JPG-Data (separately), anyway. I.e. I could import/tag/cull with LR -  which is currently quick enough for me - process with (e.g.) NX-D and re-import the finalized images into LR to have them available on all devices.

 

This would also allow me to replace individual parts of my workflow one step at a time.

 

I'll let this sink in for a few days, but currently that sounds like a plan I could actually handle.

 

Now I just need a new Apple TV and that (damned) Adobe subscription.



#14
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

There is a tool that makes LR give much better results from our NEFs. It is the ColorChecker... Shooting a chart frame now and then as light changes and running it through either X-rite's Colorchecker Passport or Adobe's DNG profile editor gives product colours and skin tones that need much less tweaking. This approach takes less time to implement than trying to get things spot-on using only the tools in LR.

I started to find LR lacking when I started shooting for a firm of interior decorators and had to get the colour of fabrics and surfaces spot-on on location and the W/B tools just weren't up to the challenge. For more normal situations where the important thing is to get it to look nice rather than exactly right, ACR in either application works without problems. There are times when LR can be frustrating shooting portraits on-location as well, but probably not from an amateur (non-commercial) viewpoint.

My reasons for abandoning LR are mostly business-related in that I sometimes am under a tight deadline and need to deliver. 



#15
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

For extremely critical work you should be using a color meter and/or a colorchecker anyway.

 

--Ron



#16
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

For extremely critical work you should be using either a color meter and/or a colorchecker anyway.

 

--Ron

Of course, but the dng conversion introduces slight errors that need tweaking. This isn't the case for Photo Ninja that has a native colorchecker calibration.



#17
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

In the meantime, I've had the chance to experiment a little with Capture NX-D in comparison to LR4.

 

For this test, I've looked through my archive and converted a handful of RAWs to JPEGs, without doing any adjustments in the software itself and (trying to) replicate the export settings between the two applications. I.e. simulating "a straight out of camera" situation. 

 

There are noticeable differences in the resulting JPEGs. For one, you can clearly see that CNXD uses some algorithm for exposure adjustment (should be Active D Lighting), whereas LR does not seem to have access to this information.

 

There are also differences regarding the rendering of fine details. When magnifying the JPEGs, the pictures rendered by LR tend to display "pixel staircases" on high contrast edges (e.g. from strong yellow to strong blue), which CNXD shows only at higher magnification. I.e. the fine detail rendering of CNXD appears to be better in comparison to LR. 

 

On the other hand, though, in a few images, LR was still better in drawing contours in areas with lots of small details, which do not have a lot of contrast between them (i.e. in the bottom of a flower, where everything is yellow).

 

From what I can judge after my small experiment, all in all CNXD seems to do a better job at RAW conversion.

 

But, sheesh, that interface of CNXD is taking all the fun out of using the application. Overall it performs very sluggishly on my system (gut feeling at about a quarter of the speed of LR4) and I had a real hard time finding my way through the controls. So much so that I'm not sure, I could get used to this application. And another thing is clear. CNXD has to be combined with another software to do the culling and sorting. With the speed and usability of CNXD, I'd go crazy when I have to go through a couple of hundred images in one session.