| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2003 06:48:32 PM · #1 |
Today is the first time i tried to use NeatImage for real. After image is finalized, with borders and all, i convert it to a jpeg to open it in Neat Image. There i tweak and tweak the noise filter settings, take lots of samples to preview, and when it looks good i apply it and save it. Then all i do is 'save for web' to get down to 150 Kb. Is this the right way to do it?
When i look at the final applied image i'm a little disappointed: some noise is definitely remaining, despite what the NI previews showed me, and because the rest of the image is so smooth now, that noise is almost highlighted and reads like 'dirt'.
Should i crank up the noise levels in NI even more to get rid of all noise or should i bring them down, make the image less smooth so that the remaining high noise areas don't stick out like a sore thumb?
Based on my limited NI experience, it seems to me that applying low sharpening as opposed to high sharpening creates less halos; at least in this picture.
Curious what other people's experiences are. |
|
|
|
05/18/2003 07:27:33 PM · #2 |
I would think it would make more sense to apply NI and remove noise after re-sizing, but before sharpening or adding borders. The sharpening will accentuate any noise present, making it harder for NI to remove it afterwards. And NI might do funny things at the border junctions.
Make your file somewhat smaller than 150k, as running the sharpening filter will likely increase the file size. |
|
|
|
05/18/2003 07:35:01 PM · #3 |
I would assume that some photographs are beyond repair with neatimage. I see photos here almost every week that are suffering from the results of neatimage use. Neatimage does help remove noise, and at the same time, detail, texture, and other elements that generally make a photograph quite appealing.
I would be willing to bet in a lot of cases, that a noisy photograph is a much better image than one that has been 'over repaired' with something like neatimage...
|
|
|
|
05/18/2003 07:54:56 PM · #4 |
That Neat Image looks like a complete waste of time if you ask me. I took a few of those photos off their page and played with them in PS...
It wasn't tough to get the same results as they had with a few Smart Blurs and some Dust and Scratches filter...
What's the deal that makes it so great? |
|
|
|
05/18/2003 07:55:49 PM · #5 |
Second John's comments. I've not used NeatImage on my submissions. I have found it to be a good tool for reducing excessive noise to the end of salvaging a high-noise shot.
Here's my take on how to apply NeatImage. First, I think that NeatImage should be run prior to resizing and adding borders, but after any color adjustment and sharpening. Sharpening will definitely make any noise more noticeable. Resizing should average out noise and produce a slightly smoother image. Give NeatImage as much information to go on as possible by running on the noisier image, and reduce noise just enough to make the result acceptable. I normally use no more than 75% at high frequency, 65% at mid-freq, and 55% at low freq.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2003 10:12:56 PM · #6 |
| I think NeatImage has substantial merit.... although I find it complicated. Profiles are cumbersome and time consuming to create for individual images - the optimum method which is impossible for busy pictures... so reliance upon stock profiles (made from grey card and/or a suitable profile friendly image) based closely on the match of perameters from your camera and/also various image specs is the next best thing. I have not pursued that avenue of creating a profile for each shutter speed, aperature and each ASA for my camera, but some users have them. I have investigated only one profile and have applied it to everything.... resulting in various degrees of what I saw to be an improvement. (my profile is from a polorized clear blue sky, shutter speed of 500, ASA of 80, and aperature of f5.6) The software defaults are way to harsh and they tend to plasticize and even add artifacts or image distortion. Sequence - as in Photoshop is all important with NeatImage and to a certian point is based on personal preference. I would not subscribe to any rigid method of applying NeatImage - and have found no magic formula for all pictures, using it. My best results seem to have come by applying NeatImage very very conservatively - no more than 50% on every frequency. As for sharpen - (very powerful and effective) also conservatively. Reading the accompanying support information..... Read me; How To Use....; Forum; and Web Page is critical for using. I have not used NeatImage in any submissions to dpc at this point. |
|
|
|
05/18/2003 10:33:20 PM · #7 |
Thanks for everybody's reply. I shared the feeling about the Neat Image 'Look', i.e. somewhat 'fake', until i saw magnetic's midnight express image, which, to me, seemed a subtle way of using NI.
I didn't do any sharpening before moving it to Neatimage. Did it in Neat Image.
At this point i'm not sold on Neat Image yet. Some effects are very nice but then it doesn't seem to take care of, or create, other effects that, just because the image is so smooth now, unfortunately becomes a magnet for the eye to draw to :)
I played at length with tweaking the profile and previewing samples everywhere. Seemed okay but then when you applied it to the whole image, the overall result wasn't what the preview samples would indicate. I tried a few more profiles using the same image, tweaking and sampling, and each time came to the same conclusion. The image used had about the same characteristics as undieyatch mentioned, polarized sky, iso 50. Noise really not all that bad and probably should just use PS for it :)
Haven't made up my mind yet about Neat Image but will try it some more. I read their Help and How To but haven't visited the forums yet. |
|
|
|
05/19/2003 04:06:49 AM · #8 |
I think there's a misunderstanding of the programme here. Neatimage is designed to correct some of the noise produced by your camera - artefacts and 'grain' patterns produced by the processing algorithms that it uses to convert the data from the sensor sites into image files. This is why there are camera noise profiles available on their site - it's univeral to your camera, even to a type of camera, not to each image, so you should only need to create one noise profile for each ISO setting on your camera.
I always use the program before doing anything else to an image - and never after re-sizing or any other processing whatsoever. It's excellent for removing moire patterns, and noise from low-light shooting. I wouldn't be without it.
Ed
|
|
|
|
05/19/2003 07:41:56 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by e301:
I think there's a misunderstanding of the programme here. Neatimage is designed to correct some of the noise produced by your camera - artefacts and 'grain' patterns produced by the processing algorithms that it uses to convert the data from the sensor sites into image files. This is why there are camera noise profiles available on their site - it's univeral to your camera, even to a type of camera, not to each image, so you should only need to create one noise profile for each ISO setting on your camera.
I always use the program before doing anything else to an image - and never after re-sizing or any other processing whatsoever. It's excellent for removing moire patterns, and noise from low-light shooting. I wouldn't be without it.
Ed |
thanks for clarifying the point regarding the significance of asa/iso settings in using NeatImage...... and you are obviously correct. I assumed that shutter speed and apperature also played a part in the working of the software.... and am probably undoubtedly wrong. I suppose I had that assumption based on recommendations for creating a profile for each image (not necessary, but "optional" according to some directions) and from looking at various profile descriptions which often include those unnecessary facts. Sorry for creating some confusion, and thanks for pointing this out. However - I do find the instructions for the NeatImage software Byzantine and have struggled to use it. I do like the results of the program if used correctly - and your photos certianly show good use of it. |
|
|
|
05/19/2003 08:00:09 AM · #10 |
Forgot to mention anything about the sharpening process - IMO, you're way better off doing this in PS or PSP - you have much more immediate control over what's going to happen!
I do have a noise filter setting that I use to give a sharper output - but it's not a finaliser, more of a useful part of the process, though I keep it mainly for landscape shots.
Ed
|
|
|
|
05/19/2003 12:46:55 PM · #11 |
I have used Neat Image a lot since downloading it a couple weeks ago. I LOVE IT. I think it's great. I know it isn't for all photos. Some that it just would make worse, but used on the right photo it will work wonders. On these photos, PS just can't do the same thing without spot editing.
It depends on the Photo, and the look you are going for. I try it on a lot of photos. If it works on a certain photo great, if it doesn't so what. You don't have to save it.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 01:53:37 PM EDT.
