Just launched: Photo Ninja

[beneix]

Just a heads-up that the folks at Picturecode have followed up on their Noise Ninja standalone/plugin with a full RAW converter, Photo Ninja.  Apparently a plugin for use with Photoshop is in the works.

I will download the trial as soon as I have some spare time to play around.  Meanwhile, if anyone else has some feedback please post it here.  There's some gushing praise from a couple of beta testers on a number of forums, especially with Nikon gear. I'd like to see more use cases.

[Tejpor]

Sadly, the version available for download (1.0?) crashes frequently on a 64-bit Win7 platform. The scrolling produces odd artifacts, like the screen does not update.  This version does not appear to be useful for me, at least.

Otherwise there are a few interesting options worth to explore, like the manual and zoned CA removal tool.

[stormyboy]

I tried it also.  I can't find an easy before/after toggle for the image being corrected.  Also, the lens corrections are non-automatic.  Otherwise, it worked ok on my Win 7, x64 system.

[Jeff Kott]

I tried it also.  I can't find an easy before/after toggle for the image being corrected.  Also, the lens corrections are non-automatic.  Otherwise, it worked ok on my Win 7, x64 system.

Right click on the thumbnail in the browser section and then select the "Show camera preview" option. This brings up a pop up view of the file with no adjustments having been made. Click on the preview and it disappears.

[Jeff Kott]

Note, I've tried PN with my RX100 files and distortion corrections have to be done manually. I wouldn't call this "support" for RX 100 raw files.

The distortion correction tool is easy to use and you can save distortion correction recipes, so if I find I get better results than with C1 (after Phase One provides support), I will shoot a grid at different focal length and aperture combos and make a bunch of distortion correction recipes for my RX 100.

Photo Ninja color, detail and noise handling are outstanding!

[Keith Reeder]

Seems robust on my Win 7/64 bit box, converting Canon 7D files.

I like the lightweight footprint; the highlight recovery is excellent, and obviously the NR is pretty effective. It's fast, too.

A bit strange that - as far as I can see - it's only possible to resize a converted file to one of the preset sizes in the relevant drop-down - no option to type in a required size.

Some highlights go a bit pink, I notice - subtle adjustments are the order of the day.

All in all though, I'm liking it so far. Thanks for the heads-up, Beneix.

Added: The "Colour Recovery" tool does a pretty good job of correcting false-colour highlights.

I can't find a way  to auto-increment the names of saved files: I'm prompted to overwrite a previous file, but the only options are yes/no - no auto-rename option, which is a bit silly. I'm sure the option will be in there somewhere, but I haven't found it yet.  

I really like the way Photo Ninja demosaics files: I don't know if it's a unique algorithm or (given that DCRaw is given a nod in the credits) something like HPHD (although given how well it also brings out fine detail, AMaZE came to mind too), but it's good, renders cleanly, and Luma noise is treated very nicely, with a smooth, unobtrusive rendering that responds well to the NR and sharpening.

That said, surprisingly it's not that good with high ISO files - the NR is far too destructive of detail, regardless of how I drive the NR dialogue.

Still a bit miffed that I can't specify my preferred image dimensions in the "Render" dialogue though, and really pissed off about the introductory pricing structure: I don't see why, having had NN since 2009, I should only get a 25% discount, whereas if I'd bought it a couple of months ago I'd get a 50% discount - what about showing some appreciation for customer loyalty?

Naaah, I'm sticking to Lightroom and Capture One.

[Jeff Kott]

Keith, what do you mean by "high iso"? 3200 and above. 1600 with my NEX 7 looks pretty good.

i also noticed from your website that you're a proponent of Raw Therapee. How do you think Photo Ninja and Capture One compare to Raw Therapee?

[Keith Reeder]

Yep, 3200 ISO and upwards (didn't try with 1600 ISO files, but I don't think of 1600 as high ISO for the 7D).

As to Raw Therapee, I'm actually pretty much done with that converter (it went from being a lean and effective converter to something slow, bloated and unstable - going open source, it turned into a developer's testbed/playground), and so I much prefer Photo Ninja - the high ISO thing isn't a barrier (I've got Lr for high ISO), and everything else about it (apart from the niggles above) is very good, especially its highlight handling (although having just done some side-by-side testing of a couple of very challenging files in Lr and Photo Ninja, Lr's actually a lot better) .

Capture One has something about its colours that I haven't been able to recreate in other converters, which is why I come back to it: Photo Ninja is better in a lot of ways (probably most ways that matter to me, actually - Cap One's highlight treatment is pretty lacklustre, and its demosaicing algorithm tends to be noisy and prone to generating a chequerboard pattern), but those colours: and (I know people say this about Photo Ninja too, but I see it a lot in Cap One conversions) there's a depth, a 3-D quality to some Cap One conversions that I haven't seen in conversions from other software.

I do like Photo Ninja, and although I've had a bit of a strop above about the pricing I probably will end up buying it, because I have a strong preference for converters that are just converters - I'd like Lr a lot more if it wasn't also a DAM solution - and Photo Ninja has a lot to recommend it.

  

[Jeff Kott]

Keith, thanks for your insights!

[Keith Reeder]

Just as a follow-up on the high ISO point: as I say, I don't consider 1600 ISO to be "high" on the 7D, but you're right Jeff - Photo Ninja does a nice job on 1600 ISO 7D files. I'll have another look at the higher ISOs - maybe profile them myself - and see if I can improve on my earlier attempts.

[Keith Reeder]

Another plus point for Photo Ninja...

My workflow is heavily dependent on selective sharpening (on a duplicate layer in Photoshop, erased from where it's not needed before flattening the layers - I apply additional NR the same way when it's needed): I've noticed that Photo Ninja conversions at "normal" ISOs (say 400) are so clean that I can apply pretty high levels of sharpening globally without the background showing any evidence of whole-image sharpening.

That's potentially a very useful benefit - for me, anyway. I think this is down to the way that Photo Ninja's demosaicing algorithm renders at the pixel level - at 100% view, the grain is very uniform and smooth (unlike say, Capture One's "cross-hatch" rendering) and the lack of "edges" to the grain (for want of a better way to put it) means that there's not much for sharpening to grab hold of in smooth background areas, but the detail in the image still responds very well to sharpening.

I've also had another look at some 3200 ISO files, and yeah, with a bit of additional selective sharpening tweaking in CS5 (which, to be fair, is where they'd end up regardless of converter) they're not bad at all, without the need for additional PP NR - although I think that it's generally reasonable to be thinking of some Topaz Denoise on converted 3200+ ISO files.

I'm still not entirely certain I've reached the point of it being the next "killer app" for me, but I'm getting there: and the idea of it eventually being usable as a Photoshop plug-in suggests lots of advantages. I've never really been able to get away with ACR, for some reason - I know that in terms of results it's the same as Lr, but I just don't enjoy using it. Photo Ninja as a functional alternative is an appealing prospect.  

Added: Just a heads-up for Canon users - the Picturecode/Photo Ninja website makes it clear enough that Photo Ninja does not support the sRaw format but it turns out that it doesn't support mRaw either.

I don't like that it takes no less than four mouse-clicks to close the program once you've rendered a few files, and there's an annoying bug in the render/naming dialogue whereby it randomly forgets to apply the naming convention you've chosen (based on user-selected "tokens") and instead retains the name of the previous rendered file, which means either that a previously rendered file is overwritten (no auto-increment of file names, remember) or nothing gets saved until you reapply the naming convention you've decided on.

I also don't know why it doesn't retain slider positions from one rendered file to the next - that's irksome - and even with "colour correction" selected, I'm still seeing false colours in some recovered highlights (not bad - and easily fixed in Photoshop - but it's there).

I'm starting to think that this could've done with some more - and more thorough - beta-testing (which is ironic, given that one of its beta-testers was Über Nit-picker Rob Galbraith!): aside from the bugs and niggles I've mentioned, there's too much repetitive and unnecessary button-clicking...

 

No batch mode, either.

[jrp]

$129 for a  time-limited license seems a little rich for a new application.

[Keith Reeder]

I agree - especially for an application that's rather buggy and pretty feature-poor...

[Gothmoth]

$129 for a  time-limited license seems a little rich for a new application.

afaik it is not time limited. but you get updates for only one year.

if you want updates after this year you have to pay again an update fee for another year.

but if you don´t want updates you can still use the software.
adobe is not so much different with forcing us to new CS versions with it´s ACR updates.


other then that im impressed by the color, noise and detail handling.
i would say it beats LR in all these aspects.

colors who are not correct in LR (no matter what camera profile i choose) are rendered nearly perfect out of the box with Photo Ninja.
i have tested a few of my tricky images and i was suprised how good Photo Ninja renders them without any tweaking.

from foliage to metallic paint the colors look more natural and closer to their real appearance.
sure i can tweak colors to my liking in LR.. but it´s time consuming.
and i have the impression that even with a lot of tweaking Photo Ninja will have an edge.
maybe because the photo ninja demosaicing renders color graduation different?

i notice that where foliage in LR shows just one green, photo ninja shows more color variance and therefore detail.

sorry, i don´t know how to say it better.. im from germany and my english is not that good.

i also like that the influence on shadows and highlights sliders is more limited then in LR.
when i push the shadows in photo ninja the middle tonal values are less affected then in LR.
same goes for the highlights.
 
photo ninja sure has some workflow issues. for example that you have to press "apply" all the time is annoying.
but they are easier to fix then a bad RAW engine.

not that LR has a bad raw engine.

im curious to hear what you "fineart pixelpeepers" have to say about this RAW engine.
in the end image quality is more important then some workflow issues... not?

and it´s v1.02... there is a lot of potential.
the foundation is there.. an excellent demosaicing engine.

now it needs some polishing on the user interface, workflow and it needs good batch processing.

since LR i was not so exited about a new RAW converter.... that says a lot.
 

ps:

in this thread in the first post is a picture that shows what i mean:

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

[Keith Reeder]

other then that im impressed by the color, noise and detail handling.
i would say it beats LR in all these aspects.

That was my initial impression too - but LR's flexible enough, colour-wise, that any differences there can be corrected easily enough; I've already expressed my view that PN is behind Lr in noise handling terms (and I'm even more of that view since I initially wrote about it); and Lr can can easily match PN's detail rendering - and then some - by invoking deconvolution sharpening, by pushing the "Detail" slider to the right.

Suffice to say, having heavily tested PN since its release, I'm not buying it. Too expensive for what it is; too buggy; too quirky, workflow-wise; delivering no significant IQ benefits; and spoiled by frequent false-colour artifacts in highlight recovery.

I'm not a "fineart pixelpeeper" - I'm a bird photographer - but I'm demanding enough to know that PN, on balance, is a disappointment to me, despite initial good impressions.

Even though I like converters that are just converters, I can see no argument for this over Lr, especially given all the local adjustment benefits that Lr provides and the relatively slick workflow and UI decisions it embodies...

[Gothmoth]

but LR's flexible enough, colour-wise, that any differences there can be corrected easily enough

yes.. but who wants to spend more time fixing things then needed?

photo ninja does it without much tweaking or offers a much better starting point.

and Lr can can easily match PN's detail rendering - and then some

well i doubt that.

i have tried anything in LR and when the detail is not there after the demosaicing then you can not do much in LR to get that detail.
sure you can push clarity and sharpen the file and get the impression of more details.
but still PN squeezes more details out of my canon RAW files.
 
i have a series of castle pictures made last year. PN manages to get more details out of the stone structures.
without me doing anything. it renders small color varieties much better then LR as it seems.
i see mall vains in the stone structure that are barely visible with LR.

another example are small trees and foliage in the background of images.
with LR it often looks like brown mush (trees) or green mush (foliage)... with PN it looks much more realistic.
 
and photo ninja does that by default... without much tweaking.

and of course i can use all kind of sharpening tricks on photo ninja files too.
my typical workflow includes photoshop and local sharpening and local noise reduction.
the sharpening and noise reduction in the raw converter are only inital steps i build on.

spoiled by frequent false-colour artifacts in highlight recovery.

read the turorials!
that is a feature.
it is usefull for example to recover highlights on skin.
as it tries to figure out the skintones.

if you want neutral highlights you have to use another feature (i don´t remember the name of right now) together with the higlight recovery, to set the highlights back to neutral.


http://www.picturecode.com/tutorials/hr.php

The algorithm recovers both luminance and color using different techniques. While it depends on the nature of the overexposure, luminance recovery tends to be more reliable, and mistakes are usually less distracting. Color recovery tends to be technically more challenging, and mistakes are more obvious.

There is no particular adjustment for luminance recovery. Recovered highlights behave the same as properly exposed highlights when you are using the exposure and tone controls. Lowering the Exposure Offset or Highlights sliders will typically expose more highlights, and increasing them will clip the highlights.

For color recovery, there is a single slider in the Color Correction filter, labelled "Color Recovery":

 
When moved to the left, the slider desaturates recovered colors. This is sometimes necessary because color recovery is inherently heuristic and sometimes makes mistakes. In particular, color fringing and certain geometric configurations can confuse the algorithm and result in false colors. In these cases, reducing the Color Recovery slider to between 50 and 75 is usually adequate to reduce the false colors to where they are not unreasonably distracting.

i can only say i did not see any false colors when color recovery was used to get rid of them.

[Keith Reeder]

i can only say i did not see any false colors when color recovery was used to get rid of them.

I imagine the beta testers didn't, either - but that just tells me they didn't push very hard...



Bigger here - and this was a regular occurrence. Lightroom deals with this file - and the rest - easily.

[Keith Reeder]

read the tutorials!

Don't push it - you're not on Canonrumors now, and you're not talking to some witless newbie here.

The tutorials don't change the fact that even with colour recovery applied (and be in no doubt that I used it - I'm well aware of the function, as you would have realised if you'd actually read what I've already written here about PN, instead of simply piling in on the arrogant assumption that you know better than everyone else), I got false colours in recovered highlights on a regular basis.

The swan above has colour recovery applied, and this is the best that PN could do on the file, and umpteen others.

[Gothmoth]

Don't push it - you're not on Canonrumors now, and you're not talking to some witless newbie here.

mhm i don´t know to whom im talking and if your a newbie or not... and i really don´t care to be honest.  
it was just a tipp. if you have read the tutorials.... fine.

but the image alone is pretty useless... give us the RAW so we can try ourself.
i mean, i can put up some bad LR images too and say that is the best possible with LR.

The tutorials don't change the fact that even with colour recovery applied (and be in no doubt that I used it - I'm well aware of the function, as you would have realised if you'd actually read what I've already written here about PN, instead of simply piling in on the arrogant assumption that you know better than everyone else), I got false colours in recovered highlights on a regular basis

well i did not see any issues.
and as you can read in the adobe forum thread some have experienced issues other have no problems.
could be possible that only some RAW formats are affected.


by the way.....you should really work on your temper.. as others have adviced you on the adobe forum already.
you sound like a very angry and unsatisfied guy... just saying.

i think my former posting was absolutely fine and in no way arrogant.

[kers]

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