Is neat image a no no? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

08/31/2005 10:58:09 AM · #1

I am getting blasted because in this challenge I have used neat image for the first time! Do people not like neat image? I love how it worked for my shot. They are saying I overdid the neat image, but it is strange I didn't even apply that much to it. (My subject has a naturally creamy complexion)

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

08/31/2005 11:01:36 AM · #2

Neatimage can work very well, especially on clear skies and things like that with lots of colour and not much texture. However, I really hate it when it's applied to skin as it makes the person look plastic and it ruins the whole photo for me.

Cutter

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

08/31/2005 11:03:58 AM · #3

It, as with all subjective things, is subjective to the viewer. As with USM and other tools, I think it is best when used to the extent needed and not more. If it alters the image substantially, it usually is frowned upon. Sometimes it comes off well, but other than that use it at lower levels to "clean it" up.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/31/2005 11:05:49 AM · #4

Thanks for explaining your thoughts on it Konador. The funny thing was, I was on the boards here and I was following a thread where someone was looking for help erasing stretch marks on skin and everyone was raving about neatimage. (which is why I went and downloaded it). I actually really liked the effect it had on the skin but I am no professional either.

JayWalk

Canon EOS-6D

08/31/2005 11:06:05 AM · #5

I LOVE NeatImage, but there is a very fine line between using it to make a picture "pop" a bit more and just ruining that picture. When I run a picture through it I almost always go lower than the auto selec because it tends to overly smooth the image and you loose a bit of detail.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/31/2005 11:08:01 AM · #6

Originally posted by JayWalk:

aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

08/31/2005 11:22:21 AM · #7

The preview box is a very useful tool...

Originally posted by troberge:

...aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

08/31/2005 11:22:39 AM · #8

Originally posted by troberge:

Originally posted by JayWalk:
I LOVE NeatImage, but there is a very fine line between using it to make a picture "pop" a bit more and just ruining that picture. When I run a picture through it I almost always go lower than the auto selec because it tends to overly smooth the image and you loose a bit of detail.

aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

Also, the free version overly compresses the result which tends to add a lot of artifacts.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/31/2005 11:26:52 AM · #9

The key to using Neat Image effectively is in how the noise profile is built. Make sure you choose, or the program chooses, an area of solid color with little, or no, detail. You can also download already made profiles for your specific camera.

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

08/31/2005 11:32:34 AM · #10

Originally posted by troberge:

I would agree that there are very few occasions when you would use Neat Image at the auto settings (especially on skin) but it is a very useful tool and I tend to use it mostly on landscapes where you have a lot of distracting pinpoints of light appearing through leaf canopy.

I have had good results using it very sparingly on certain landscapes. There is also a market for the full power softening that produces a painted feel to the image...but that is a technique which you either love or hate.
Samples of both light and heavy use below..

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/31/2005 11:34:27 AM · #11

I love neat image, but for it to be effective in a photo if shouldn't be noticeable, if you know what I mean?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/31/2005 11:35:31 AM · #12

As previously posted, the free version of NeatImage is guaranteed to mess up the quality of your pic. It will only save with really high compression (poor quality) and you will ge tvoted down. Over-application of NeatImage has the tendency to make skin look too smooth, gives it a plastic look. I would hazard a guess that's what people are seeing on your shot. NeatImage is a wonderful tool, and if you feel that you will want to use it in the future, you should purchase one of the full versions. Once you can save at full quality and you have a chance to experiment, you'll be much happier with the results.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/31/2005 12:07:25 PM · #13

Originally posted by troberge:

aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

which isn't really a problem, because you can THEN go to "Edit" and fade the neat image effect until you're happy with the result.

08/31/2005 12:20:46 PM · #14

Originally posted by kirbic:

That is exactly what they are saying. I went back and looked at the original photo and other than taking out a few bumps on the skin, it does still look similar, just cleaner. I hear what everyone is saying about the free version and as soon as I can afford it think I will have to invest as I do love the effect of it and thought that GEEWHY's examples looked great.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/31/2005 12:21:17 PM · #15

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by troberge:
aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

which isn't really a problem, because you can THEN go to "Edit" and fade the neat image effect until you're happy with the result.

Thanks for the tip beetle. Can this be done in the free version as well?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

08/31/2005 12:28:10 PM · #16

Originally posted by troberge:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by troberge:
aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

which isn't really a problem, because you can THEN go to "Edit" and fade the neat image effect until you're happy with the result.

Thanks for the tip beetle. Can this be done in the free version as well?

No, beetle is referring to using it as a PS plug-in. Only one or two flavors of the purchased version include the plug-in functionality. When you are ready to buy, you may want to make sure you get the version that functions as a plug-in; that way you can do things like fading the effect, or even applying the efffect to selected parts of an image (this last is not legal for basic editing, of course).

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/31/2005 01:36:01 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by troberge:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by troberge:
aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

which isn't really a problem, because you can THEN go to "Edit" and fade the neat image effect until you're happy with the result.

Thanks for the tip beetle. Can this be done in the free version as well?

No, beetle is referring to using it as a PS plug-in. Only one or two flavors of the purchased version include the plug-in functionality. When you are ready to buy, you may want to make sure you get the version that functions as a plug-in; that way you can do things like fading the effect, or even applying the efffect to selected parts of an image (this last is not legal for basic editing, of course).

Actually, you CAN do it, by neat-imaging the shot, copying the result, and pasting it over the original shot in PS and fading the overlay layer.

Robt.

LeeD

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/31/2005 01:48:20 PM · #18

Example of "selective" NeatImage

NeatImage applied to water only.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

08/31/2005 02:05:35 PM · #19

troberge, I think you blew the anonymity of your entry. I like it, and am giving it a good score; but I can see why some people would think the NI was over done. In this case it doesn't really detract from the photo.

kyebosh

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

08/31/2005 02:16:38 PM · #20

great for softening a scenic picture.

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

08/31/2005 03:47:37 PM · #21

Originally posted by troberge:

Originally posted by kirbic:
As previously posted, the free version of NeatImage is guaranteed to mess up the quality of your pic. It will only save with really high compression (poor quality) and you will ge tvoted down. Over-application of NeatImage has the tendency to make skin look too smooth, gives it a plastic look. I would hazard a guess that's what people are seeing on your shot.

That is exactly what they are saying. I went back and looked at the original photo and other than taking out a few bumps on the skin, it does still look similar, just cleaner. I hear what everyone is saying about the free version and as soon as I can afford it think I will have to invest as I do love the effect of it and thought that GEEWHY's examples looked great.

The examples I posted were produced using the free version of Neat Image.I find that it works perfectly well for websized pics...however, I would agree that the full version is recommended for working on large size images.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/31/2005 03:53:02 PM · #22

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by troberge:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by troberge:
aaaah then maybe I applied more than I thought I did because I chose to use the auto selects.

which isn't really a problem, because you can THEN go to "Edit" and fade the neat image effect until you're happy with the result.

Thanks for the tip beetle. Can this be done in the free version as well?

No, beetle is referring to using it as a PS plug-in. Only one or two flavors of the purchased version include the plug-in functionality. When you are ready to buy, you may want to make sure you get the version that functions as a plug-in; that way you can do things like fading the effect, or even applying the efffect to selected parts of an image (this last is not legal for basic editing, of course).

Actually, you CAN do it, by neat-imaging the shot, copying the result, and pasting it over the original shot in PS and fading the overlay layer.

Robt.

Yes indeed you can... you can also do selective this way, using a layer mask. However, if you have the plug-in version and can run it from within PS, then edit>fade immediately, it is legal in basic :-)