Has someone compared LR to PhotoNinja?

[Guest]

http://www.picturecode.com/index.php

how does LR and PhotoNinja compare in image quality?

the reviewer seem to be impressed.

but how much is just PR blahblah (makes small format camera images look like medium format) .... how much is fact?

“I have been using Photo Ninja for a while now and I must confess that the image quality is amazing. Better than any other raw converter I have ever used. The images get this ‘realistic’ look. I cannot describe it better than that.” 

Tomas Hellström Photography enthusiast, Sweden

“Photo Ninja makes small format camera images look like medium format work -- simply fantastic!”

Pete Myers Fine art photographer, Santa Fe, NM.

“...a stellar raw converter...” 

Rob Galbraith

“The image quality this program produces absolutely destroys any other raw converter I've tried in terms of colour reproduction, exposure controls, and noise reduction. ” 

Mark van Dam Wedding photographer, Wasaga Beach, Ontario

edit:

i have spend a few minutes with it.
loaded some DNG files and compared it to LR.

i noticed that the highlight and shadow adjustments in photoninja work more restricted.

they don´t affect the medium tones as much as LR.
for the images i tried it on i liked it better then lightroom.

the colors are way better out of the box. that really suprises me.

i have only looked at a dozend of photos yet but color rendition seems to be great out of the box.

the photos i have looked at show a blue yamaha R1 bike on a racetrack.
no matter what LR profile i use the color is off by default (too purble or too light blue).

the photoninja color is SPOT ON without any editing.

i sure will spend some more time testing photoninja.

here is a crop from an image (from the image backround, not in focus. but look how much detail photoninja managed to show).

best i could achive with LR and with photoninja.

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

[Keith Reeder]

1234ewqrd wrote:

Hi Hamada,

(Keith may call me a sucker here, I suppose ).

Why on earth would I do that? I truly don't care what you do with your money.

Yet again: the thread asked for people's opinions of PN in comparison with Lr: I answered. Nothing suggested that only responses that gushed mindless approbation for the software would be acceptable.

Why on God's green earth is it such a bloody problem for some people that PN doesn't satisfy my converter needs? I'm not going to apologise for having high standards.

I can't be bothered to rehash my findings, but you read about them - including the bugs - here.

[ButterFingers]

Hi Keith,

Thanks for the link - I had not seen that thread on LuLa. Useful reading for others interested in PN.

In regards to my byline to you possibly calling me a sucker for paying ... it was intended as a joke only.

Hans

[finesse99]

Using an image I have with a 80% blown out sky, taking up half of the picture, I found nx2 done nothing to bring any colour back when using the recovery slider. NX2 being a joke when it comes to highlight recovery. PN made the clouds also turn blue with the reduction slider fading the sky and clouds together. LR4 done it right (nearly) in bringing back some of the blue of the sky taht LR3 never could, though some blue had to be brushed back in. The core conversion of PN creates very attractive pictures, tonally. If PN take feedback on board v2 may well be worth considering for me if I could make local adjustments (or I'd have to use Photoshop more often) and it had more library features. All in all a suprisingly competent job for a first release.

[Romain_Th]

Hi finess99,

I'd be curious to give a test on your image if you don't mind. Would it be possible to send the original RAW to me ? Thanks a lot.

Also Keith, the swan image issue looks interesting. If you are OK with this, I am also interested in the original RAW.

I also experience some issues in highlights and I have had discussion with Picturecode.

Thanks everybody

[finesse99]

Coudn't figure out how to upload nefs but I think the above will allow you to see what I'm on about or recreate the situation. 1st: nx2 with (poop) highlight correction 2nd: lr4 with auto tone and lastly PN  with highlight correction slider turned down to about 60%. Had to screen dump PN. Other than the colour correction leak in the clouds, PN is very imprssive though may not show how good due to output method.

[areohbee]

Thanks to all for the info. I've never tried PhotoNinja, but I appreciate knowing about it. I'm too locked in to Lightroom to seriously consider a jump, but I hope Lr gets some more serious competition.

[Guest]

Thanks for the info hamada2003

I never heard before of that very impressing peace of software.

It provides much more details and it´s hilight recovery is better than the one in Lr.

The out-of-the-box results are way better than I can achieve with Lr or C1.

@finess99

for me, the PN image looks more realistic than the other ones.

For uploading you nef, you could try this link:

http://www.2shared.com/

[HarrieB]

After reading this post I finally downloaded the two weeks try version.

Now I'm trying to fiddle with the LR settings to get something that looks a bit like PN's output but that seems to be impossible. PN almost always gives much sharper, differentiated results. There may be some isues with highlight recovery but overall PN outperforms LR by far. It's auto-mode is much less unreliable too.

The built-in Noise Ninja does - as expected - a very fine job, better dan LR is able to.

Keith_Reeder complained about the price and I think he's right. But if PN could be used like a DAM program that would make a huge difference. Now it's "just" a superb converter and you would need something like Photo Mechanic alongside. And the GUI is flat out bad implemented.

Same with DxO - no DAM. This gives LR a very strong point.

So Adobe, take a look at Photo Ninja and maybe reverse engineer the demosaicing???

[areohbee]

harrieb wrote:

But if PN could be used like a DAM program that would make a huge difference. Now it's "just" a superb converter and you would need something like Photo Mechanic alongside. And the GUI is flat out bad implemented.

Same with DxO - no DAM. This gives LR a very strong point.

So Adobe, take a look at Photo Ninja and maybe reverse engineer the demosaicing???

If you prefer PhotoNinja's demosaicing, you can use PhotoNinja in conjunction with Lightroom very easily:

Just save PhotoNinja's output to a folder accessible in Lightroom and manually sync folder after saving in PN, or use auto-import. (OttoImporter works very well for this, once it's set up).

And using both to work on the same photo works well too - i.e. just do the part PN is best at, and then take it the rest of the way with Lr.

One of the advantages of this approach is that rendering in Lr is much faster, so you don't have to spend so much time staring at the "Loading..." indicator.

I was just doing that with DxO as a test - worked great (comparison of DxO with Lr is "out of scope" (too far off topic) )

R

[Guest]

From Lightroom you can "edit in" PhotoNinja.  PhotoNinja will find the raw file to which the tiff refers and then when you are done working on the raw file, it will overwrite Lightroom's tiff.

[areohbee]

Gerhardt K. wrote:

From Lightroom you can "edit in" PhotoNinja.  PhotoNinja will find the raw file to which the tiff refers and then when you are done working on the raw file, it will overwrite Lightroom's tiff.

Even better, I guess.

PS - I got curious - just tried PN - not sure what all the fuss is about. - ok, it has some redeeming qualities, but overall, Lr much better. - you don't think? ( and I mean just the raw rendering aspects ... )

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see somebody give ACR a run for it's money, so to speak, but so far: nobody has. I mean Lr1&2 weren't any better than the rest, if as good (e.g. C1, NX2, DxO...), but the quality of Lr4 is so far unmatched, in my experience. Maybe google will create a competitor with Nik technology 🙂

Rob

[DdeGannes]

@gerhardt K. Where did you get this info?

[HarrieB]

Rob Cole and Richard K., you are both right. I could take that approach.

Unfortunately that leaves me with two applications to use (three if you count ACDSee too which I use as first quick way to see what can be deleted). And there is that price point...

Sometimes someone comes to me who needs quick results from at it's best technically mediocre quality pictures and I use DxO for that. PhotoNinja would be a great alternative for that kind of things.

In my opinion it gives better - or more appealing - results with nature, architecture and products, but is too "revealing" with models.

And I will sure take a closer look at Rob's OttoImporter of which I never heard before.

[areohbee]

Hi harrieb,

I understand wanting to keep it simple. However, if somebody really had created a raw converter which I considered superior to Lr in most critical ways, I'd strap that baby onto my Lr and deal with the added complexity (and cost). But my experience with PhotoNinja was: in come cases very good (when photo doesn't push it's limits), but top-notch highlight recovery and shadow handling, are essential, IMO, and PhotoNinja ain't there - neither highlights nor shadows. - just my opinion.

Not sayin' this to defend Lr - it's my "objective" opinion, as objective as I know how to be anyway.

Still, I hope PN becomes successful competition for Lr.

Survey:

---------

How much have you spent on camera hardware and accessories vs. software?  Me? -  way more than an order of magnitude more on hardware. I'd find a way to afford another $100+ on software if it really noticeably improved my pictures.

Cheers,

Rob

[HarrieB]

Rob,

The highlight/shadow treatment of LR is the best I have seen so far, This is something - especially the highlight recovering - PN is not allowed to do for me. I made a start-point-preset in PN that only takes care of CR2 Demosaicing, Color correction (defaults), colour enhancement (scenic or flat) and most of all: Noise Ninja.

After your previous post and that of Gerhardt K. I've come to this sequence: I first do Lens correction, CA and defringe in LR,  sent the file to PN for he mentioned things and and do the rest  in LR.

And this raises another question: I somehow think it is best to do the Lens correction and so before sending a file to an other application, be it Photoshop, Photo Ninja or OnOne Perfect Suite 7. But is this the right approach or should these corrections be made afterwards or doesn't it even matter?

About your Survey: Yes, I've spent much much more on the hardware and that's why there isn't that much left for the software...

Greetings, Harrie

[areohbee]

Well, I don't know much about PN, but if you want to take advantage of it's raw capabilities, you have to do it before Lr (i.e. demosaicing).

In other words, there is no way to combine edits to a raw file, other than converting to RGB (e.g. jpeg or tiff) in one and sending to the other - it's just a matter of deciding who's raw processing you want - that software will have to be first in the "pipeline".

[HarrieB]

You are right. Forgot to tell that I was playing around with the two applications while using some tif's and jpg's too, of which I didn't have any RAW's. Confusing, I admit.

Might I buy PN then I would maybe sent alle my nature/architecture and maybe product shots (fabrics) direct into PN, but models and portraits may be better off with LR only.And if I decide not to buy PN I will sure follow it's development hoping they can do better with highlight recovery and add DAM capabilities over time. Unless LR reverse engineers but I've already told that and I know it is rubbish.

At the moment the Netherlands are getting whiter and whiter. So If I have time I make some hard contrast snow-shots and see more of the two in action.

[areohbee]

Thanks. - do keep us posted ( and leak a link to one of your hard-contrast snow-shots ).

[HarrieB]

Please take a look at http://members.chello.nl/h.borgers1/tijdelijk/LRPN.htm where I put some first results.

[areohbee]

Thanks harrieb,

No doubt PN has some redeeming qualities, but it seems to me that the Lr results look more natural, and the snow looks better.

Cheers,

Rob

[AlanUniqueName]

Some interesting comparisons… thank you harrieb.

I’m no expert but aside from trying to colour match, if the programs have been used more or less with their “default” toning values then in my view there is simply too much variation to rely on “defaults” to make a good IQ comparison.  

For example, in the “drainpipe crop” I think the blacks in PN are much deeper than LR – look at the detail in the window reflection.   However, on the spotlight crop it is strangely the other way round – again look in the window reflection and under the tiles.    If they are crops from the same masters I’m not sure I can get my head round that, but as said … I’m no expert.

As far as the snow goes, for the “Lily pad” crop I think PN shows more texture for snow in the sunlight, but for the “pyramid crop” I prefer the LR result which I think shows more texture in the shadows (see side of pyramid – especially at top).  Overall, to me, the PN snow looks more “mushy” in the shadows.    However I’m not convinced the rendered WB is exactly the same or the highlight recovery is a major difference between the two.  To my eyes PN is showing a pink tinge which may be more correct especially if shot late / early in the day?   

Always interesting to see comparisons, and not saying anything wrong with the approach, but for me it raises more questions than answers and I think I would want to use both programs to the full on a shot to try to match WB, colour and tone and get the best from each and then make a comparison.

Thanks again harrieb, very interesting.

Alan.

[HarrieB]

AlanUniqueName, I don't see a way to get to a real 1:1 match of WB, colour and tone. For instance, I use LR's WB tool and click on a spot it gives me another reading as when doing the same in PN, on exactly the same spot. Copying the values for Temperauture an Tint from one to the other gives a totally unuseful result.

The Exposure and Detail panel in PN is by far not layed out the same as in LR and sliders with according names react different. Same goes for Color and Tone.

In the house-shot I finally gave up and tried to get a as colose most match in the colors of for instance the roof.

I just compared another image in which both are set to the same value (From Camera, As Shot) and PN gives 4250 and +5 while LR gives 4500 and +22. Pointing at the same spot of concrete in both programs results in PN: 4600 +9, LR: 5050 +19.

Your remark about the blacks in PN is what I found too. Somehow PN gives a HDR-like appearence in the midtones and getting rid of the overexposure warning results in not so nice highlights. But the blacks seem OK. PN doesn't have an underexposure warning so I had to guess a lot.

By the way: the crops are from the jpg's each application gave. Cropping was done in after being layerd in PS and then Saved for web.

Due to the forthcoming wheater expectations the opening of an exhibition I'm taking part with has been postponed for a week so maybe I have time to make some other comparisons.

Perhaps I will focus on the highlights once more because either PN's overexposure warning is way off or PN just can't deal with it

I just took another CR2 with a lot of sky, quick developed it in LR making sure the overexposure warning was gone and exported the result. Opened the last one in PN and there the warning still exists in some areas..

I will keep you all informed.

Harrie

[areohbee]

Thanks Harrie,

PS - I think the only meaningful comparison of quality is with each at their "best" settings.

Rob

[HarrieB]

the reason for trying things out at the defaults is trying to understand the interpretation (or maybe philosophy) behind the two.

That said I also tried to take a very appealing PM-output and tried to get the same result in LR. Whatever I did, I found the PN better and could only get close in LR (sort of "mild semi-HDR", lots of Clarity and Detail) at the cost of obvious pixelation. Still think Noise Ninja is better then Lightroom's denoising.

[HarrieB]

A  very quick one: two screenshots, both with no corrections and overexposure warning enabled, left is Lightroom, right Photo Ninja: