Highlighted

Has someone compared LR to PhotoNinja?

Explorer ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Views

22.7K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more

Has someone compared LR to PhotoNinja?

Explorer ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Views

22.7K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Enthusiast ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes i have tested it for a few days and i think it IS impressiv.

It is a bit slow. But the rendering of small details is great.

I managed to quench out more details then with Lightroom.
And im not a Lightroom newbie, thought im a Photoninja newbie.

What looks smeared in LR often shows details in Photoninja.

Im not sure if it´s because the Noise Reduction of Photoninja is better.

In LR i normaly use around 15-30 luminance noise for images under ISO 800.  I think that is not so much.

But you can see that you lose some details in foliage etc.
With Photoninja i get the same clean image, or cleaner, but with more details.

One thing that bothers me with LR since forever are these strange artifacts you can see in your example image too, this "pixelation" around contrasty edges.

It comes from sharpening i guess but Photoninja does not show it, or much less.

Sorry i hope you all understand what i want to say. I can´t say it better with my bad english.

I also find that the colors looks great.
At least for my canon cameras i find the photoninja colors more pleasing, without any tweaking

I can only advice anyone to test this RAW converter and build your own opinion!!

I would also like to hear what you think about it.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Enthusiast ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here is a review:

http://billstormont.wordpress.com/?page_id=3927&preview=true

No matter if you like Photoninja or not, one thing is 100% sure in my opinion:

the default rendering of Photoninja is worlds ahead of LR and ACR.

Lightrooms "AUTO" feature is pretty useless, while Photoninjas default image settings (calculated default settings) work most of the time very good.

Adobe should look at this raw converter and get some ideas how to make Lightrooms AUTO feature work.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Community Beginner ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have been testing it for a week now.

Yes you don't get all the features of Lightroom but regarding image quality this piece of software is VERY impressive.

I have tested a lot of converter and I can say that detail rendering is the best I have seen and color rendering is on par with Capture One (but different). These 2 software are the only one I think that gives very good color rendering. Lightroom has been out for years and colors are still crap ihmo.

Noise suppression is good too (better than C1) but I would not say better than LR: it is smoother but less detailed.

Highlight recovery is also the best I have seen (but sometimes you have to mitigate it).

Well, it is a very strong software. I you need a speedy workflow, LR is better, but for image quality Photo Ninja is way ahead.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Advisor ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Do I need to CONVERT my raw images (e.g. as in DxO) with Photoninja?

Or can I just store rendering instructions inside a catalog, like the LR principle?

Thanks for an answer and apologies that I am too lazy yet to look for myself 😉

Cornelia

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

settings are stored in XMP metadata. but no catalog.

Photo Ninja can save editor settings in XMP sidecar files for RAW images, or in embedded XMP within DNG, JPEG and TIFF images. When you save XMP, the pixels in the image file are not modified; the editor settings are stored separately in a text-like format. If you reopen the file later, the saved settings will be applied to the original image data, so you can go back and make changes to your settings while always working from the original pixels. This approach is called "nondestructive editing".

NOTE: Photo Ninja settings are written to a separate "namespace" within the XMP, so they can coexist with settings from other software applications that also utilize XMP. (If you encounter an application that overwrites Photo Ninja's settings, you can enable the "Shadow XMP" option in Photo Ninja's preferences dialog to work around this.)

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Engaged ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A lot of people will like it for its non-database approach and its explorer-base viewing (no import needed).

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've tested PN heavily since its release, and my overall impression (given the bugs I've found, the irritating, inefficient and downright faffy workflow/UI decisions it embodies, the lack of flexibility in its functionality and - crucially - the regular and predictable false-colour artifacts it produces in highlight recovery, which aren't fully corrected by the colour correction tool) can be articulated in one of two ways.

Either:

  • it's far too expensive for such an incomplete, inadequately-tested, buggy, limited, flawed software release; or
  • it would be more or less acceptable at around half the price.

Suffice to say, I've maxed out the (only!) 15 day trial period, and Picturecode isn't getting my money. I wanted to like it (I much prefer converters that are just converters) but PN fails on a number of very important points for me.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Keith_Reeder schrieb:

I've tested PN heavily since its release, and my overall impression (given the bugs I've found, the irritating, inefficient and downright faffy workflow/UI decisions it embodies, the lack of flexibility in its functionality and - crucially - the regular and predictable false-colour artifacts it produces in highlight recovery, which aren't fully corrected by the colour correction tool) can be articulated in one of two ways.

Either:

  • it's far too expensive for such an incomplete, inadequately-tested, buggy, limited, flawed software release; or
  • it would be more or less acceptable at around half the price.

Suffice to say, I've maxed out the (only!) 15 day trial period, and Picturecode isn't getting my money. I wanted to like it (I much prefer converters that are just converters) but PN fails on a number of very important points for me.

you remember LR v1.0 ?

yes PN is buggy... yes the workflow needs some work.
it needs to mature... no question.

but the image quality is already better then lightrooms in MANY cases.

im using LR for some time (3 years i think) but if there isn´t something i missed, then i can´t get the same detail rendering in LR.

i mean... look at my example image.

i pushed the sliders for hours on that image in LR and i did not get the same level of details (at the same noise level) i get instantly with photo ninja.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

hamada2003 wrote:

you remember LR v1.0 ?

So what? Am I only allowed an opinion if it agrees with yours?

I am not impressed by PN. End of story.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied


 

So what? Am I only allowed an opinion if it agrees with yours?

I am not impressed by PN. End of story.

huh... you seem to be a very agressiv person who takes this personal.

you can say what you want of course.... so do i.

you know... this goes both ways.....

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

No, I'm not aggressive, I just find people who get defensive the insant someone deigns to disagree with their opinion, tiresome.

If you don't want other people's opinions, don't ask for them.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

yes you are.

YOU get upset when someone does not agree with you.. not me.

so better grab your own nose.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Enthusiast ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

hamada2003 schrieb:

you remember LR v1.0 ?

A very valid point!

It´s the first release of a new Software. We should keep that in mind.

I think we can expect a lot in the future.. and todays issues will sure be fixed in the future.

I may add the Clarity issue in LR 4.0, the curves issue, the performance issues... etc. etc. pp..

LR 4 was far from perfect when released and i still don´t like the look of the new Clarity function.

hamada2003 schrieb:

but the image quality is already better then lightrooms in MANY cases.

100% agree.

If they fix the flaws (the crashes) the Software would be worth the money for me.

I spend 120 Euro on a ND Filter yesterday and 3100 Euro on my new Camera.
So why skimp on Software.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Enthusiast ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Romain_Th schrieb:

I have tested a lot of converter and I can say that detail rendering is the best I have seen and color rendering is on par with Capture One (but different). These 2 software are the only one I think that gives very good color rendering. Lightroom has been out for years and colors are still crap ihmo.

Yes Skintones are a weak point in LR if you ask me.

I think all the LR profiles for my Canon cameras are bad.

I bought a Colorchecker Passport because i am so dissatisfied with Lightrooms Canon profiles.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

-Agfaclack- wrote:

hamada2003 schrieb:

you remember LR v1.0 ?

A very valid point!

And if we were discussing Lr v1.0 I'd have made similar comments about Lightroom too.

But we're not: we were asked to express an opinion about Photo Ninja. I did. It's not very good. That's the truth as I see it.

Make excuses for its failings if you like, but they're still failings. I'm obviously not clever enough to see into the future so that I can temper my opinion of a piece of software now with the knowledge of what it will be like at version 4...

But - "picture saying more than 1000 words" and all that - here's my main problem with PN:

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/PN_false_colours_highlights.jpg

This is the best PN could do (and don't anyone even think of suggesting I need to learn to use PN. No user error here).

I shoot in this sort of challenging light all the time, and handling images like this in Lr is trivially easy.

When PN can recover highlights properly I might have another look.

My opinion is nothing to do with "skimping" - the simple fact is that it's not worth the price, which is a different thing altogether.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Enthusiast ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Read the postings again.. nobody denied the issues PN has.

Still the RAW engine is great in my opinion.

I did not dismiss LR 4 because it´s Clarity feature sucked... i waited for a fix.

And i guess the Highlight feature in PN will be fixed soon too.

No need to have the ability to see into the future or be very clever to make such a guess.  

Keith_Reeder schrieb:

My opinion is nothing to do with "skimping" - the simple fact is that it's not worth the price, which is a different thing altogether.

That´s to a great deal subjectiv.

For some Photoshop is not woth 10x more then Elements.

You get Linux for free.. Windows not.

ps:

someone gave me the tipp to use "color recovery" to get rid of the introduced colors in the highlights.

you may want to test that if you did not already.

my guess is they do it this way because if you want to recover highlights in skintones it is better to interpolate to the the surrounding colors.

shadow/highlight in photoshop, for example produces gray.

photo ninja tries to get a color similiar to the skintone.

of course that is counter productive when you have pure white... like your swan.

i will test it as soon as i am at home.

ps ps:

yep it´s all explained here:

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

Keith_Reeder schrieb:

This is the best PN could do (and don't anyone even think of suggesting I need to learn to use PN. No user error here).

Well.... i guess you should not be so confident about that next time.

I tried it on a few images (some white bird images like yours) and it worked flawless when done right.

Likes

1 Like

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

i don´t know if he has used color recovery on that image.

but i did not notice these false colors myself, when the color recovery is used correct.

maybe you should upload that image keith reeder, so we all could have a look? 

maybe it´s a camera brand dependend issue? only noticable with certain RAW formats?

but i did notice that photo ninjas highlight recovery does a better job on skintones then lightroom.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
New Here ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Any one remember Raw Magic Light? That too had the majenta highlight recovery and was realy slow!I think one had to add Green some way or another, . so long ago cannot recall however when you got it right it was great.... In those days RML was one of the best RAW developers for NEFs but had for me a steep learning curve. Photo Ninja is way easier.

Most of the magenta/ Rose (blown) highlite problems I have been able to solve with with a reduction to around 50% in color recovery of Photo Ninja, usualy less, say 75%. Sometimes LR4 does the job easier, never automaticaly in Capture NX (nikon user) oftener Photo Ninja.

I had promised myself to stick to one product but I keep on chopping and changing. Mostly agree that skin tones seem better in Photo Ninja.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

when you do a google search you will see that even LR had some issues with highlight recovery and a magenta cast for some raw formats in the past.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

And again - so what?

We're not talking about Lr then, or PN in three years time, we're talking about PN right now, and it comes up wanting, whether or not you're prepared to accept that.

[Personal attack removed by Adobe admin to keep the forum a friendlier place.]

Message was edited by: TerriStoneCHL

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Engaged ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Chill guys. No point of arguing.

Thank you Hamada2003 for letting us know about the software. Thank you Keith for letting me know about the cons. So people who have time will test out the software. And those who are busy will wait until it's better. Personally I'll wait. I don't want to crash my system. Maybe when PN gets better, LR is already at another level.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

[Personal attack removed by Adobe admin to keep the forum a friendlier place.]

Message was edited by: TerriStoneCHL

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 03, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

-Agfaclack- wrote:

One thing that bothers me with LR since forever are these strange artifacts you can see in your example image too, this "pixelation" around contrasty edges.

It comes from sharpening i guess but Photoninja does not show it, or much less.

Perhaps what you are seeing comes from sharpen masking? - in the transition zone between masked and unmasked regions...

I call it "sparkling".

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
New Here ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Hamada,

I've actually bought the software (Keith may call me a sucker here, I suppose ).

I do agree in part with Keith in that it's handling of highlights, is not as graceful as LR. You can get yellow hotspots which the colour correction will not get rid of. Also it's processing workflow is a different. I actually get the approach and have no problems with it.

I must say that the images do come out with more detail (especially in shadow areas) and, to me a better 'look'.

However, every bit of image software has it's own look too - put the file through LR, Capture NX2 (which I also have), Bibble (sorry, Corel) etc and they will have differences. I actually find PNs photos more natural looking. Highly scientific tests with my family comparing processed  images had them all gravitating to PN (lol).

After using the software for a bit, I sent a feedback email to PN and received a prompt, detailed response from Jim Christian (the founder) - that bodes well for a continuous-improvement approach from PN.

I covered a wide range of topics in my email all of which received a response which left me feelling good about the future of the software.

I, for one really appreciate that it is trying to be 'best of breed' raw converter. This is clearly a different paradigm for LR, which (of course is also trying to be best raw converter), but has a much larger functional footprint by design.

I'l specifically comment on performance (since I am one of the people with the 'laggy sliders' problem in LR4.1 - I'm currently working out LR4.2, with unfortunately not positive results at the moment) - the user-experience in PN is consistent - by that I mean, no laggy sliders and the application informs you when it is processing - that means that they know how to manage their UI, worker and tools threading. When LR fires up 30+ threads (on a W7 machine) and consumes 50% of CPU (still on LR4.2) just when the mouse moves over the image - that's interesting from an application developers' pov.

I'm sorry to hear Keith that you have found it buggy - that's not been my experience. And I do understand your position in that you want to compare LR now to PN now. That's a purchasor's position - what doI get for my dollar now. I'm more inclined to look at PN from a startup-competitor and directional perspective.

I'm actually glad I spent the money on PN to help foster some competition and also to learn from what other tools can show me. Seeing a different result gets me out of the visual comfort zone. After a while you just don't see that LR does *something* to greens and starts with a somewhat processed raw file (opps! that's back to the "is zero, zero" thread).

I thought I'd give you a detailed reply Hamada, since I thought your OP reasonable and inquring (even in an adobe forum).

regards

Hans

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
New Here ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Community Beginner ,
Oct 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Explorer ,
Oct 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

DSC_8772 nx2 - Copy.jpgDSC_8772 lr4 - Copy.jpgScreendump PN.jpg

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Oct 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
New Here ,
Oct 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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/

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 04, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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???

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
New Here ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Adobe Community Professional ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@gerhardt K. Where did you get this info?

Regards, Denis: System iMac mid-2015, 5K 27” monitor, macOS10.15.5: LrC 9.3, Lr 3.3, Ps 2020, Camera OM-D E-M1.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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".

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

After trying to edit my post I got a message that something went wrong. So I hope this way I can add what I wanted:

And still I'm looking for maybe something instead of DxO when I need very quick results. Unfortunately I didn.t find any batch-capability in PN. Is it there, somewhere hidden?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks Harrie,

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

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

MolenLRPN.jpg

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks again Harrie, and also: consider optimizing adjustments in both, then compare.

e.g. Lr version seems to need -blacks, and PN version probably needs some recovery.

As you probably know, Lr4 has automatic highlight recovery which can not be disabled, and is very good, and it may not show clipping in the same way...

Cheers,

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Contributor ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Been working with LR from version 2 but never found the automatic highlight recovery.... What am I missing here? You don't mean the useless Auto-tone, do you?

Harrie

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
LEGEND ,
Dec 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

harrieb wrote:

Been working with LR from version 2 but never found the automatic highlight recovery.... What am I missing here?

It's new to Lr4/PV2012. Try switching to PV2010 (with a photo that has highlight clipping) to see the difference.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...