Hope Springs Eternal & Photo Ninja

[Ysarex]

The plants will win. Took this on my walk this weekend. I'm always amazed at how plants relentlessly overcome all obstacles.



I'm really loving Photo Ninja. The above was processed using Photo Ninja, and even after just shelling out $100.00 to upgrade Capture One, I see myself shifting over to PN as my default raw converter.

Joe

P.S. New experience this week: Since I retired from full-time employment I go for long walks 3 to 4 days a week (carrying my compact camera). On Monday someone called 911 on me. I came to a corner to cross the street and a police car pulled up at the same time. I stepped back to indicate he should proceed, but instead the officer got out of the car and came over to me. When I saw the second car pull up I started to figure it out. It seems I've transitioned into the old bum wandering the neighborhood that you call the cops on. The officer and I had a nice little talk and I continued on. I suspect what prompted the call was my habit of walking up a block and then down the alley then up the next block and down the alley and so forth -- that way I get more exercise without straying to far from home. I assume someone first saw me walk past the front of their house and then saw me walking down the alley in the back.

 

[Frequency]

i liked the contrast and colors; yet i say i am not sure that the plant is growing o n the walls, eventually bringing down that to collapse

 

[Derrel]

That image looks like it has good detail down in the lower values, even with soft, diffused light. It's a very subtle, natural, lovely appearing image. What is it that makes Photo Ninja such a good raw converter? Are there a few qualities that it has that really make it special? Does it have multiple qualities or characteristics that make it exceptional? Does it have one or two or maybe even three "outstanding" advantages that make it worthy of your high praise? I value your opinion on this since I know how rock-solid your technicals are, and also that you have real-world experience with multiple raw converters, not just "one", so I guess like so many people, I'm hoping for a 10 cent answer to what is probably a $64 question...

Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results: I once spent a week running the SAME 100 or so files through all of the raw converters I had...Nikon Capture, SilkyPix, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Fuji's EX Converter, as well as MacBibble...on "most" files the results were anywhere from very good to excellent; on "some" types of images though, occasionally one of the raw converters would turn out simply outstanding results...and sometimes there would be a clunker as well...

 

[Ysarex]

That image looks like it has good detail down in the lower values, even with soft, diffused light. It's a very subtle, natural, lovely appearing image. What is it that makes Photo Ninja such a good raw converter? Are there a few qualities that it has that really make it special? Does it have multiple qualities or characteristics that make it exceptional? Does it have one or two or maybe even three "outstanding" advantages that make it worthy of your high praise? I value your opinion on this since I know how rock-solid your technicals are, and also that you have real-world experience with multiple raw converters, not just "one", so I guess like so many people, I'm hoping for a 10 cent answer to what is probably a $64 question...

Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results: I once spent a week running the SAME 100 or so files through all of the raw converters I had...Nikon Capture, SilkyPix, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Fuji's EX Converter, as well as MacBibble...on "most" files the results were anywhere from very good to excellent; on "some" types of images though, occasionally one of the raw converters would turn out simply outstanding results...and sometimes there would be a clunker as well...

I'm working on it; I'll get back here with a more detailed answer soon. If you have a good exposure of a properly lit scene then I think most converters today will serve and allow for sufficient user control to deliver the image you want -- some may require a few extra hoops to jump. That said; get your lighting and exposure correct and get a copy of LR and you're in business. Photo Ninja can deliver where the others fall short on those photos that push past the normal limits. I'll pull together an example.

Joe

P.S. Frequency -- that's an old garage and next to it is a concrete sidewalk. That tree was growing out of the 10mm gap between the sidewalk and the garage foundation.

 

[Ysarex]

That image looks like it has good detail down in the lower values, even with soft, diffused light. It's a very subtle, natural, lovely appearing image. What is it that makes Photo Ninja such a good raw converter? Are there a few qualities that it has that really make it special? Does it have multiple qualities or characteristics that make it exceptional? Does it have one or two or maybe even three "outstanding" advantages that make it worthy of your high praise? I value your opinion on this since I know how rock-solid your technicals are, and also that you have real-world experience with multiple raw converters, not just "one", so I guess like so many people, I'm hoping for a 10 cent answer to what is probably a $64 question...

Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results: I once spent a week running the SAME 100 or so files through all of the raw converters I had...Nikon Capture, SilkyPix, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Fuji's EX Converter, as well as MacBibble...on "most" files the results were anywhere from very good to excellent; on "some" types of images though, occasionally one of the raw converters would turn out simply outstanding results...and sometimes there would be a clunker as well...

INSTALLMENT 1: Why you don't need Photo Ninja but still MUST have it.

Illumination and Smart Light.

Photo Ninja has an adjustment along with the standard exposure adjustments that's called Illumination. There is also a default processing option called Smart Light that makes use of the Illumination adjustment. You can either use the built in Smart Light algorithm or adjust Illumination by hand. It's awesome!

An extreme example: Last year around Xmas I drove to Nashville to pick up my wife (visiting mom) and I had to cross the Ohio river at Paducah. On the Illinois side of the river is the small town of Metropolis -- yep home of Super Man. He's 2 stories tall in the middle of the town square and at Xmas he was wearing his Santa cap. That's right Super Santa. How do you not take a picture of Super Santa? BUT, he was backlit and I was just passing through with no time to stop. Still I took the photo. I knew I'd blow the sky, but I set a -1 EC to not blow the sunlit lawn and background and grabbed the shot. I figured maybe I'd get away with faking in a sky later.

Going to use this for Xmas card this year:



I was able to process that through Photo Ninja and not have to fake the sky -- I'm still somewhat in disbelief. A few tweaks in PS and there it is. How bad was it? Here's a screen grab of the default open in DPP, C1, ACR and Photo Ninja.

DPP
Capture 1
ACR
Photo Ninja

The Photo Ninja screen shot has the Smart Light option set on for default. You can turn it off and reproduce the same or a variant by hand. ACR can get closest and adjust the sky to blue however it will not open up the statue as well or with as much contrast and it will not render detail in the clouds above the background building. Photo Ninja actually manages to render subtle detail in those clouds. DPP can't get the sky blue no matter what you do and Capture One can't get the sky blue and produce anything workable with the statue -- they just won't do it.

I tease my students and tell them I'm patenting the ultimate Photoshop Plugin that's going to revolutionize photography. It's a physical device that connects via USB once the software is installed. It's a synthetic hand that clamps to the back of your chair and whenever the software sees you trying to process a photo like this one it smacks you aside the head and a voice yells, "You idiot! Why didn't you light it right in the first place!" Then it smacks you again. Which is to say, although Photo Ninja is amazing in this regard, if you find yourself using this extreme ability that it possess you really don't need Photo Ninja you need to learn how to take photos.

Joe

P.S. Further installments coming.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Joe:

I did not like Recovery in the ACR module. Felt like it made whites turn gray and muddy. The overall appearance of an image was really poor with heavy recovery. But highlights is really intelligent and doesn't mangle the image. Adobe has figured out their alogrithms really well.

It seems a lot of this comes down to the amount of DR the camera is able to capture.

So what you're saying is in this type of common high DR situation, Photo Ninja performed better at highligth recovery than the highlights slider in ACR?

 

[Ysarex]

Joe:

I did not like Recovery in the ACR module. Felt like it made whites turn gray and muddy. The overall appearance of an image was really poor with heavy recovery. But highlights is really intelligent and doesn't mangle the image. Adobe has figured out their alogrithms really well.

It seems a lot of this comes down to the amount of DR the camera is able to capture.

So what you're saying is in this type of common high DR situation, Photo Ninja performed better at highligth recovery than the highlights slider in ACR?

Simple answer: Yep, ACR comes in 2nd place. (I just got the new version 7 of Capture One and just started testing it. The above was done with version 6 so I still have that to consider).

This is a favorite topic of mine and get's to the core of what it is we do. ASSUMPTION: The end target is a finished print that we nail to the wall. That's not as solid as it used to be but it's still a fair assumption. For all the changes in photography of recent decades that target hasn't moved. The tonal response of the blackest ink or developed silver on the whitest paper we can manufacture is and has been a fixed and unmoving target. The tonal/contrast range of the scenes we photograph is variable and can extend far beyond the range of our target. Reasonable limits exist as we stay focused on the end target. It has always been unreasonable for example to assume we can capture a backlit scene with good exposure for the backlight and at the same time not get a silhouette up front -- a colorful sunset over a mountain can't expose well for the color in the sky and the mountain as well.

All those years shooting film and you'd make a print and then start with the burning down of highlights. You'd put the neg on a light table and get a loupe on it and sure enough it's in there! Detail! You can see it, but it won't burn down onto the print. One of the first things I did when high dynamic range scanners showed up was dig out a bunch of negs that I'd never been able to print and started scanning them at 48 bit.

So now digital sensors can record even more than film captured (which we couldn't squeeze onto the paper). We're losing sight of the target. Earlier generations of raw converters had limits engineered into things like the exposure and recovery sliders because they reflected a real limit in the target. But we screamed for more and demanded those limits broken. If you squeeze all that tonal data together in a 12 stop high contrast capture it turns to mush. That leaves then only one alternative which is tone mapping. The latest generations of converters like ACR now and Photo Ninja are actually adding tone mapping capabilities. That's what's going on here. I think that's OK and I will make use of it but I'm also concerned for the results we'll see as it falls into the hands of those who need that smack aside the head, "Idiot! Why didn't you light it right in the first place!"

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

That image looks like it has good detail down in the lower values, even with soft, diffused light. It's a very subtle, natural, lovely appearing image. What is it that makes Photo Ninja such a good raw converter? Are there a few qualities that it has that really make it special? Does it have multiple qualities or characteristics that make it exceptional? Does it have one or two or maybe even three "outstanding" advantages that make it worthy of your high praise? I value your opinion on this since I know how rock-solid your technicals are, and also that you have real-world experience with multiple raw converters, not just "one", so I guess like so many people, I'm hoping for a 10 cent answer to what is probably a $64 question...

Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results: I once spent a week running the SAME 100 or so files through all of the raw converters I had...Nikon Capture, SilkyPix, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Fuji's EX Converter, as well as MacBibble...on "most" files the results were anywhere from very good to excellent; on "some" types of images though, occasionally one of the raw converters would turn out simply outstanding results...and sometimes there would be a clunker as well...

Installment 2: Noise Ninja Rules!

Tonight in class one of my best students brought in a bunch of photos of her daughter and friends at dance/gymnatics class. We first had a good laugh as she told me about the other parents (exclusive private school) with their DSLRs madly chimping away every shot and twisting various knobs on their cameras and chimping some more. She got a few really good photos but she had to run the ISO (Canon Rebel XS) all the way up to 1600. Thank heaven she knew what she was doing and why! (A student). Needless to say the photos were a bit noisy and she was complaining to me about the noise. The college has CS6 installed and she shot all the photos raw so we were primarily working with ACR. I tried to console her that a little noise was a fair price to pay for a great shot of he daughter on her hands in the middle of a cartwheel and we did what we could with ACR. Damn! these digital students are spoiled -- I remember ISO 1600 color film!

Had my laptop along and so I offered to load up Photo Ninja and see if we couldn't do better using Noise Ninja. We did; Noise Ninja brings in that extra edge where it counts. Personally I rarely raise my ISO to 400 so I don't have a lot of test worthy material. I have tripods and a monopod and I use them. At base and low ISOs the other converters do a fine job managing noise and Photo Ninja falls in with the crowd. It's on the high end that Photo Ninja pulls out ahead. If you're like me and you keep the ISO below 200 most of the time then you don't need Photo Ninja. But, if you're forced to regularly shoot up in the 4 and 5 figure ISO range, Noise Ninja is fully incorporated into Photo Ninja and Noise Ninja rules!

Joe

P.S. Sorry I can't show you any of my student's photos from this evening, but they have recognizable kids in them and I don't want to go to jail -- you're going to have to take my word on this one.

 

[The_Traveler]

As I understand their FAQ, one would integrate this into a LR workflow by exporting from LR to PhotoNinja, which then ignores the tiff and edits the nef, writing a alternative sidecar file to another folder and saving the edits as a tiff back to LR.

Is this enough of a plus to add another step to the workflow?
And is NoiseNinja as good as Denoiser (which I am testing now?)

Lew

 

[Ysarex]

As I understand their FAQ, one would integrate this into a LR workflow by exporting from LR to PhotoNinja, which then ignores the tiff and edits the nef, writing a alternative sidecar file to another folder and saving the edits as a tiff back to LR.

Is this enough of a plus to add another step to the workflow?
And is NoiseNinja as good as Denoiser (which I am testing now?)

Lew

I think that's exactly the question and if I were an LR user that relied on the database management features of that program then I'd answer no. I'm prepared to say that if IQ is your only concern then Photo Ninja will outperform LR, but if you're looking at the whole picture and need DAM software support then the slight extra IQ that Photo Ninja provides isn't going to make it worthwhile to incorporate into an existing LR workflow. For the folks at Picture Code that's not good news -- I suspect they know that.

Derrel noted above, "Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results..." No truer words ever spoken. This fact has gnawed away at me for years and explains why there are currently 6 raw converters installed on my system. I hate the fact that I can't really see what I did. I can't unlearn the experience of processing a 4x5 sheet neg, putting it on a light table and then a densitometer and really seeing what I did. When I hear people talk about how useful exif data is in learning I remember how useful it was to actually see that negative. Then I stood on a rock solid foundation -- today my foundation feels wobbly as I open the same file in three different converters and they all show me something different and no matter how hard I try I can't make two of them produce identical results.

I'm always on the lookout for a little more edge in IQ. That's a diversion that won't help a business do better business. There's good reason for LR's overwhelming success; it's a business tool. Photo Ninja is an enthusiast's tool.

Joe

P.S. Lew, sorry I haven't tested Denoiser yet -- to do list.

 

[Ysarex]

That image looks like it has good detail down in the lower values, even with soft, diffused light. It's a very subtle, natural, lovely appearing image. What is it that makes Photo Ninja such a good raw converter? Are there a few qualities that it has that really make it special? Does it have multiple qualities or characteristics that make it exceptional? Does it have one or two or maybe even three "outstanding" advantages that make it worthy of your high praise? I value your opinion on this since I know how rock-solid your technicals are, and also that you have real-world experience with multiple raw converters, not just "one", so I guess like so many people, I'm hoping for a 10 cent answer to what is probably a $64 question...

Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results: I once spent a week running the SAME 100 or so files through all of the raw converters I had...Nikon Capture, SilkyPix, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Fuji's EX Converter, as well as MacBibble...on "most" files the results were anywhere from very good to excellent; on "some" types of images though, occasionally one of the raw converters would turn out simply outstanding results...and sometimes there would be a clunker as well...

INSTALLMENT 3: Out damned CA! Out!

Have you ever gone to remove CA from an image and noticed that your adjustment that removed CA from the corners actually added a little CA in the center? Yeah, that's a pisser. If only you could target the CA removal to a local region on the image. Now you can. This is one of those; "Why didn't somebody think of this sooner!"

Photo Ninja will do as most converters now: analyze your photo for CA and take it out automatically. Next step, it will allow you to further tweak that adjustment for the entire photo which again most converters will do. But then Photo Ninja goes them all one better and will allow you to tune the CA removal for the corners, outer third or inner third of the image. Awesome! Here's a screen shot. I've activated the zone-level CA adjustment and you can see the green circle guides on the photo.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

That image looks like it has good detail down in the lower values, even with soft, diffused light. It's a very subtle, natural, lovely appearing image. What is it that makes Photo Ninja such a good raw converter? Are there a few qualities that it has that really make it special? Does it have multiple qualities or characteristics that make it exceptional? Does it have one or two or maybe even three "outstanding" advantages that make it worthy of your high praise? I value your opinion on this since I know how rock-solid your technicals are, and also that you have real-world experience with multiple raw converters, not just "one", so I guess like so many people, I'm hoping for a 10 cent answer to what is probably a $64 question...

Different raw converters can really create wildly differing results: I once spent a week running the SAME 100 or so files through all of the raw converters I had...Nikon Capture, SilkyPix, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Fuji's EX Converter, as well as MacBibble...on "most" files the results were anywhere from very good to excellent; on "some" types of images though, occasionally one of the raw converters would turn out simply outstanding results...and sometimes there would be a clunker as well...

INSTALLMENT 4: Trifles make perfection and perfection is no trifle. --Michelangelo

If you have a well lit and properly exposed capture from a camera with a decent optic, most of today's modern raw converters are going to give you a good photo and the differences will be trifles. That said Michelangelo would use Photo Ninja over ACR/LR. Michelangelo was a bad business man and because of his unstable demeanor and volatile character he lost many a commission to Raphael. Raphael would be an LR user.

So here's the same file processed through both (Photo Ninja and ACR 7). I took them both into Photoshop as 16 bit RGB photos, cropped them and applied the same amount of sharpening to each. Each photo was white balanced using the software's white balance tool on precisely the same sample area. The most striking difference I see is in color rendition and, having spent as many hours on the river as I have, I can assure you PN got the color of the barge right and ACR didn't -- a trifle. There are flotation rings hanging on the boat; PN got the color right and ACR shifted it red and oversaturated it -- still a trifle. I applied the default noise filtering for both converters; PN has a smoother sky -- another trifle. The PN rendition is a little snappier and brighter -- a little more contrast. Is it the software or my application of it? Probably the later and I should go back to the ACR version and tweak it.

They're at full res so you can pixel peep.

Joe

ACR 7
Photo Ninja