Just launched: Photo Ninja

[Bryan Conner]

Lets stay on topic...

I have used PN now for a short period and like the fact that it has a totally different approach to Lightroom4( photoshop CS6) while delivering very good results...
But it differs from photo to photo what turns out best. 
In some cases the results in PN have clearly more detail in others adobe produces better detail...i find
In some cases Adobe turns flat and PN has better 3 dimensionality.
here one example 100% crop right side 24mm 1,4G nikkor d8 Nikon d800e

I agree.  I downloaded PhotoNinja and shot a few low iso images along with some high iso ones.  I was able to duplicate the PN results in LR4 with no problem, and with a much better user interface in LR4.  PhotoNinja does seem to do a very nice job of the initial rendering using the default settings.  But, like any raw converter, some personal adjustment is needed to reach the best image for my taste.  This was much easier for me to do in LR4.  I did not see an advantage in the noise reduction in PN over LR4. 

I can see how some people could really like PhotoNinja, but I am sticking with LR4.  It is easier to operate in my opinion.  But, as always, to each his own.  If you get better final results from PhotoNinja, then that is the best converter for you.  LR4 is the best for me.

[robgo2]

I agree.  I downloaded PhotoNinja and shot a few low iso images along with some high iso ones.  I was able to duplicate the PN results in LR4 with no problem, and with a much better user interface in LR4.  PhotoNinja does seem to do a very nice job of the initial rendering using the default settings.  But, like any raw converter, some personal adjustment is needed to reach the best image for my taste.  This was much easier for me to do in LR4.  I did not see an advantage in the noise reduction in PN over LR4. 

I can see how some people could really like PhotoNinja, but I am sticking with LR4.  It is easier to operate in my opinion.  But, as always, to each his own.  If you get better final results from PhotoNinja, then that is the best converter for you.  LR4 is the best for me.

I have started a new thread regarding Photo Ninja, but I will add a comment here that I do not think that LR4/ACR comes close to Photo Ninja in terms of IQ.  The Adobe raw convertor has always produced flat, dull images that require a great deal of adjusting to make them pop, but often the end result is even worse than the starting point.  I realize that the LR user base is huge, but that does not change the fact that it is a mediocre raw convertor.  In terms of workflow and features, LR is the clear winner, which is the real reason for its popularity.  But in terms of image quality, PN smokes it.

Rob

[Tim Lookingbill]

I realize that the LR user base is huge, but that does not change the fact that it is a mediocre raw convertor.

The jury is still out on whether that's a fact.

Going by Bryan's sample comparison I'm not too thrilled with Photo Ninja's sharpening induced chroma crushing effect on color seen in the green shrubs where multiple hues of green shown in the LR version on the left get turned into one hue of green. The same effect happens applying a blur layer set to luminance blend mode in Photoshop or using a high setting on Color noise slider in LR/ACR.

However, PN's uniform sharpening across the entire image is darn near magical. Bryan's LR version shows what looks like blur spots where it appears random wind is hitting some areas over others.

[robgo2]

The jury is still out on whether that's a fact.

Going by Bryan's sample comparison I'm not too thrilled with Photo Ninja's sharpening induced chroma crushing effect on color seen in the green shrubs where multiple hues of green shown in the LR version on the left get turned into one hue of green. The same effect happens applying a blur layer set to luminance blend mode in Photoshop or using a high setting on Color noise slider in LR/ACR.

However, PN's uniform sharpening across the entire image is darn near magical. Bryan's LR version shows what looks like blur spots where it appears random wind is hitting some areas over others.

Where is Bryan's sample comparison?  I have not seen it, nor have I seen the effect you describe in my own images, although I must confess that I have not been looking for it.  I am finding that color rendering in Photo Ninja is strongly affected by the preset that is chosen.  In particular, the Scenic presets markedly enhance the separation of green and yellow colors.  If anything, they are a bit exaggerated, and I frequently have to dial down saturation and detail. 

That said, I think that we can all agree that there is no perfect piece of software.  All contain certain weaknesses.  The trick is to know what they are and then find ways to work around them or live with them.

Rob

[Tim Lookingbill]

Sorry about that. I meant kers' post #19. That image sample comparison.

And a correction on the blend mode Photoshop effect I described where I meant to say blurring a Color blend mode layer instead of Luminance layer.

I saw the same effect posted on another image comparison test over at the Adobe Forums linked discussion...

http://i.imgur.com/8b72x.jpg

From here:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1075979?tstart=0

[robgo2]

Sorry about that. I meant kers' post #19. That image sample comparison.

And a correction on the blend mode Photoshop effect I described where I meant to say blurring a Color blend mode layer instead of Luminance layer.

I saw the same effect posted on another image comparison test over at the Adobe Forums linked discussion...

http://i.imgur.com/8b72x.jpg

From here:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1075979?tstart=0

I'm a bit mystified, because Kers' example in this thread and the one in the link you provided show opposite effects, i.e. the former shows slightly less green tonal/color variation with Photo Ninja, while the latter shows much more variation (and detail) with PN.  I think that it may vary from image to image and with the particular settings that are used, but overall, I find that PN more than holds its own in terms of color and tonality.  Beyond that, images just look better right out of the box and require very little adjusting.  I would prefer a bit less contrast and saturation in some of the Scenic presets, but I suppose that I can make my own to suit my taste.

Rob

[Tim Lookingbill]

...Kers' example in this thread and the one in the link you provided show opposite effects...the former shows slightly less green tonal/color variation with Photo Ninja

You are misunderstanding my description of the appearance of the green shrubbery on both.

I see on both the PN samples lowered saturation of green which reduces the appearance of richness AND depth. Whenever you reduce saturation of a cluster of colors representing a 3D object with texture such as a shrub which has various hues of the same color green that gives this 3D effect, that cluster of varying color loses its variations thus its perceived depth.

This de-saturated appearance looks butt ugly on a print due to its reduced dynamic range and reflective behavior of color compared to how it looks on a transmissive light display.

See below and judge which version of the same image you'ld want to print. People who describe this "Natural" look which almost certainly appears de-saturated don't seem to share the same depth perception as mine.

View that image in a color managed browser or drap & drop and load in Photoshop. It should have an embedded sRGB profile.

[robgo2]

You are misunderstanding my description of the appearance of the green shrubbery on both.

I see on both the PN samples lowered saturation of green which reduces the appearance of richness AND depth. Whenever you reduce saturation of a cluster of colors representing a 3D object with texture such as a shrub which has various hues of the same color green that gives this 3D effect, that cluster of varying color loses its variations thus its perceived depth.

This de-saturated appearance looks butt ugly on a print due to its reduced dynamic range and reflective behavior of color compared to how it looks on a transmissive light display.

See below and judge which version of the same image you'ld want to print. People who describe this "Natural" look which almost certainly appears de-saturated don't seem to share the same depth perception as mine.

View that image in a color managed browser or drap & drop and load in Photoshop. It should have an embedded sRGB profile.

I guess that I am missing your point as it applies to the sample from the Adobe Forum, in which the PN image may be less green, but at the same time shows vastly more detail and definition.  In comparison, the Lightroom image shows featureless green blobs representing trees.  I cannot understand how that contributes to a 3D effect.  Besides, it is a simple matter to dial up saturation, while it is impossible to do the same with detail.  Color differences between raw convertors can simply be the result of different profiles.  I may be wrong, but I fail to see that PN has a deep problem in this regard.  As I have said previously, my experience so far suggests that Photo Ninja, if anything, tends towards excessive saturation requiring downward adjustment. 

Looking at images as a whole, not as clumps of pixels, I think that PN really delivers outstanding quality.  Anyone who wants to judge for himself/herself should download a free trial.

Rob

[Tim Lookingbill]

I may be wrong, but I fail to see that PN has a deep problem in this regard.

I didn't say PN has a deep problem in this regard.

I'm saying I don't see this more "Natural" better quality rendering from its default settings. I do see a different starting point than ACR/LR's but I haven't seen enough images to tell if it's consistent or if it will be consistent with my own images.

I'm not downing Photo Ninja. I'm being real.

I read their demosiacing methods on how they remedy lateral chromatic abberation, zipper artifacts which I do encounter using ACR on some images. Very informative and a useful improvement.

http://www.picturecode.com/showcase/demosaicing.php

http://www.picturecode.com/showcase/ca.php

I just wish someone would show a 100% crop of an image that actually possesses this "Natural" better looking image quality. Everyone that says this prefaces or back peddles saying it's subjective to where it's just getting a bit disingenuous.


 

[Tim Lookingbill]

If Photo Ninja can give me better Raw defaults than what I get in ACR, then I'll buy it. But I don't see anything wrong with ACR's color compared to Photo Ninja's.

First image is default 100% crop out of ACR downsized a bit, second shows typical tweaks I have to apply to bring out definition after making the image look normal without creating halos and HDR like solarization.

[kers]

If Photo Ninja can give me better Raw defaults than what I get in ACR, then I'll buy it. But I don't see anything wrong with ACR's color compared to Photo Ninja's.

First image is default 100% crop out of ACR downsized a bit, second shows typical tweaks I have to apply to bring out definition after making the image look normal without creating halos and HDR like solarization.

Did you try it ?
the program works without costs for two weeks to give you an idea..

What i like about it is that it gives sometimes more detail- less moire and seems to have a different approach to the RAW creating an alternative to Lightroom/ACR.
It seems to use all the information in the RAW to keep highlights and shadows and tries to keep a nice microcontrast in all parts.  So your example could be done well in PN is my guess
A stone wall for instance will come alive as 3D in PN because of this...
For me it goes wrong with images with special light like concerts and night photography... Were we want a different outcome than usual.
Also it has some little problems because they are at 1.03  - I think I will wait a little longer before buying it...

[robgo2]

Did you try it ?
the program works without costs for two weeks to give you an idea..

I will second this suggestion.  Try it for 2 weeks and then make your own judgements on the PN's strengths and weaknesses .  Unfortunately, the free trial version will not permit processing to output, but I have heard that if you contact Picture Code, they will give you a temporary license which enables processing.

I have gone ahead with the purchase of Photo Ninja, which will replace Capture One as my main raw convertor.  I may still use RPP for selected images, but I will have to gain more experience with PN to see if it can equal RPP's quality.  If it can, then RPP will go up on the shelf as well, even though I really love it and will miss it.

Rob

[StephaneB]

In some cases the results in PN have clearly more detail in others adobe produces better detail...i find
In some cases Adobe turns flat and PN has better 3 dimensionality.
here one example 100% crop right side 24mm 1,4G nikkor d8 Nikon d800e

There is no more detail. There is more sharpening. Very good sharpening, yes, but that is totally doable in LightRoom.

[robgo2]

There is no more detail. There is more sharpening. Very good sharpening, yes, but that is totally doable in LightRoom.

I have run more head to head comparisons of Photo Ninja and ACR than I can count, and in my hands, ACR cannot equal the output from PN no matter how much I manipulate sharpening.  PN does show more detail, and it doesn't take much effort to bring it out, contrast is far better, and colors are superior.  And yes, the sharpening (deconvolution) is very good, the best that I have seen in any raw convertor.  Also the recently released PN v1.1 has the brand new Noise Ninja 4 that is a huge leap beyond NN 3 and ACR.  Not even a contest.

I'm surprised that Photo Ninja doesn't get much love here at LuLa, but this is very much an Adobe-friendly site.  I use Adobe products (CS6) all the time, but ACR is no longer the class leader in raw conversions, a distinction it lost quite some time ago.

Rob

[kencameron]

...and in my hands, ACR cannot equal the output from PN...

Are you confident that you are highly, and equally, skilled in both programs? I am always a bit sceptical about comparisons like this, because I can't be certain that the difference is in the programs and not in the relative expertise of the person using them.

That said, I certainly intend to give Noise Ninja a try.

[robgo2]

Are you confident that you are highly, and equally, skilled in both programs? I am always a bit sceptical about comparisons like this, because I can't be certain that the difference is in the programs and not in the relative expertise of the person using them.

That said, I certainly intend to give Noise Ninja a try.

In answer to your question, yes, I am quite confident in my skills in both programs.  I first used ACR in Lightroom 1, and I have kept up with every update through CS6, constantly comparing it to other raw convertors.  To be perfectly honest, I have never been satisfied with the output from ACR regardless of how much effort I put into it, which is the reason for my ongoing quest for an alternative.  Over the years, I have used DxO, Capture One and RPP, but Photo Ninja is the ONE.  If you do try it, give yourself about one week to learn the presets and adjustment modules.  Do head to head comparisons with ACR, and have fun.

BTW, the majority of PN users are converts from ACR/LR.

Rob

[barryfitzgerald]

I was looking at this myself PN looks interesting. But does it support lossy DNG if not then that's out the window then

[robgo2]

I was looking at this myself PN looks interesting. But does it support lossy DNG if not then that's out the window then

I'm not sure what "lossy" DNG is, but Photo Ninja can open DNG files.

Rob

[Bryan Conner]

I just downloaded the trial version of Photo Ninja.  It does not have the option to save a file as a lossy dng, only dng.  It also will not open a lossy dng file created in Lightroom 5.

[jfwfoto]

I bought PN at launch and thought it very good but continued to use ACR mostly out of familiarity and of course it is not bad. When I processed my first Ricoh GR DNG in ACR I was disappointed in the result. There was a lot of CA and loss of detail. After a run through PN it was a whole new image. All of the IQ I had read about was there and beautiful and it took very little effort to get it there. There have been other lenses that were a CA struggle in ACR that came out good in PN with the automatic settings. I am a little disappointed that I am paying for an upgrade already but at least it is not expensive. I think they may have a stealth subscription sales model. I have to say that it is worth every cent.