Need opinions please

[hunter58]

This is for post processing advice.

I've been testing a new software called Photo Ninja.  I'm posting two photos below, one was processed my usual way the other with Photo Ninja.  What I would like to know is which photo do you like better #1 or #2 and if possible tell me why.  Also please comment on which looks more natural, we've all seen GBH in the field so which bird looks most like the real thing?  This was a tough shot, some of the bird in the shade some in the sun which caused some of the white to be blown out a little.

Thanks!
#1


#2

[Ira Runyan]

First off, let me say that I have little experience in processing Raw files, because I am too lazy for all that processing so I normally shoot JPG.

Of these two shots I like the first one (#1) best. It appears to be sharper, shows more feather detail, and the colors are more vivid, thus more appealing to the eye.

On the other hand, #2 appears to have a more natural gray color of the bird, but the whites also look gray and dull.

I hope that after you get some responses, you will tell us which one was rendered with  Photo Ninja.

[hunter58]

Oct 27, 2013 9:01:23 GMT -5 Ira Runyan said:

First off, let me say that I have little experience in processing Raw files, because I am too lazy for all that processing so I normally shoot JPG.

Of these two shots I like the first one (#1) best. It appears to be sharper, shows more feather detail, and the colors are more vivid, thus more appealing to the eye.

On the other hand, #2 appears to have a more natural gray color of the bird, but the whites also look gray and dull.

I hope that after you get some responses, you will tell us which one was rendered with  Photo Ninja.

Thanks Ira and yes I will let everyone know which is which after some more responses.

[DNK]

Steve,

The second one looks more natural in color and clarity to me. The first photo appears to be over sharpened. Please keep in mind I do not have the best monitor. Like Ira said #1 appears more vivid but #2 look natural.

Now for the answer......lol

I would says #2 was done with photo ninja

[hunter58]

Thanks Ira and Doug for participating.

The reason I was looking at Photo Ninja for raw file processing is I’ve read some really good reviews on the product and I currently use Noise Ninja which is strictly a noise reduction program made by the same company which I like very much.

Note: This picture was not a very good shot to begin with and that is why I chose it.

Picture #1: I used Elements 11’s “Adobe Camera Raw” (ACR), then any further adjustments in Elements. After that I used Fast Stone Image viewer to crop & resize the image and also sharpen it. Then I used Noise Ninja to reduce the noise.

Picture #2: I used Photo Ninja and then Fast Stone Image Viewer to resize. With Photo Ninja it selects settings for you right out of the box based on your camera and lens which is pretty cool. It also can be trained to do certain adjustments that you can setup. Example would be if you find yourself constantly making the same adjustment time after time you can have the program make it automatically when you open each picture.

Other notes: With Photo Ninja I really pulled back on the highlights to see what it would do with the whites on the head and as Ira commented it appears more gray than white. Although it did a good job on the blown out highlights this means I pushed it too far. In my opinion the first shot is over saturated with color, the beak just a little too orange, the sky reflection on the water too blue and you’ll notice a little too much reddish tint.

In summary: The one issue I have with Photo Ninja is the ability to mask certain parts of the image within noise reduction. This feature is in the old Noise Ninja and they left it out of Photo Ninja. When you apply noise reduction you lose details especially when it’s a bird in the shot at close distance. They say the new noise reduction as better than the old and it’s supposed to handle these subtle details better, which it does in most cases. However I still feel like that tool is needed. I have let the people at PictureCode know and I’m hopeful that will put it back in on a future upgrade. Overall if you want to process raw files this is worth looking at and you can get a two week trial license at their website. Also keep in mind that you may still need an editing program like Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements or FastStone for cloning, other adjustments and touch up work.

You can visit the PictureCode website at this link

Hunter

[jgunning]

First one would tend to draw your eye due to the saturation and contrast. Looking carefully, the saturation is too high. In the second the bird is a bit flat looking to me, but the saturation and colors except for the bird look better.

I do have Noise Ninja (2.4.2 version) and didn't go to Photo Ninja pretty much for the reasons you state. You do have to be very careful with a global noise reduction, or it will take a lot of detail out. I normally use the brush tool to control where the noise removal is applied. Like sharpening, it is best used sparingly.

I haven't tried Photo Ninja at all. It might work OK, and doing it automatically certainly speeds things up. I've been doing raw processing since I swapped over to digital cameras, so I'm used to the process and can zip through it pretty quickly for most images. I use either Adobe Camera Raw or Capture One for the raw conversion. The shadow and highlight controls in the two raw programs usually take care of adjustments there. Anything beyond that I usually do a spot adjustment in Photoshop.

[Tom Brewer]

I am by no means the master of noise reduction.  My experience started by developing and printing my own 35mm film---then you could see "grain" very easily as you cropped and refined your own shots.  Now, I am kinda lost---unless it is obvious, my perception is not good---especially on background noise.  I use a product called NEAT IMAGE.  Ira recommended it to me.  I make and sell a lot of greeting cards---a lot!!!  Before I print any photo, I have a lot of A-plus shooters look at it, basically for composition and noise.

Shooting "RAW" is a different animal.  I have read all the comments, and all have been excellent.  Two things I will caution you on---sharpness and over-saturation.  It is very easy to go too far on either one of them.  Don't know if either has anything to do with noise.

My limited eye would have been of limited use to you on either shot....................

[jgunning]

Referring to Tom's post above, there is a delicate dance between sharpening and noise reduction. Sharpening will make the noise worse, because it "sharpens" the noise and makes it stand out. Normally, noise reduction is done first and then the image sharpened to bring it back to an acceptable sharpness. I have done it in reverse, but almost never. The problem with noise reduction is the tendency to kill the micro-details that are in the image. There is no way to recover these if the noise reduction is overdone. Better to accept a little noise than ruin the detail in a shot. Noise is always most obvious in sky or large areas of single color. The most useful noise reduction tools are those that allow use of a brush tool that you can "paint" the noise reduction on the image. That way you can hit the sky and the areas that need it the most without ruining the detail in the image.

Some raw converters will give a level of noise reduction in the initial raw conversion. The problem is this will be a global application affecting the entire image. Sometimes it will work just fine, others not. It depends on the image. Better not to do noise reduction in the raw converter and instead, apply it selectively to the image in post processing.

[hunter58]

Hi all,

I do apologize for not using a better photo for the test. Thanks for your input James, I too use the brush tool and I wanted to let everyone know what the response was from Picture Code. My email at the bottom, their response at the top.  There might be something to look forward to.

~~~~~~~~~~~


Hi Steve,

We will add local adjustments (brush, mask) in the future. We just haven't gotten to it yet.

If you have Photoshop, the Photo Ninja filter plug-in does support masking from Photoshop, so you can do this that way now.

Kind regards,
Bill
PictureCode


On 10/27/13 4:11 AM, Steven Spenceley wrote:
Dear Picturecode,

I’m a Noise Ninja (NN) user and currently using ACR for Raw files. Recently had received the two week trial license. I’ve always like NN and was hopeful that Photo Ninja (PN) would be a good Raw Converter which it is. There is only one feature that is keeping me from purchasing PN. The ability to mask out certain areas of a photo within new NN. While the noise reduction is smarter in the new version I still need to be able to remove noise with a brush or some other way. Most of my photography is of birds and noise reduction no matter how smart or fine reduces the detail of bird feathers especially at close range.

This email is a request that you consider putting that feature back in the new NN in a future upgrade. If you did that I would love to own Photo Ninja.

Thanks!
Steve Spenceley

~~~~~~~~~~