| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2006 08:31:00 AM · #1 |
I have seen the neat image examples on there website, but would like to see some more before I decide if it's worth buying.
Could neat image help this photo?
Could someone touch it up with neat image so I could see?
Would love to see some of your before and after photo's that you used neat image on too.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 08:35:04 AM · #2 |
| It is worth buying and it could remove the noise grain from that photo. I use it with varying degrees of strength on anything shot at iso 400 or above pretty much. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 08:36:39 AM · #3 |
Free Version |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 08:52:19 AM · #4 |
Southern Gentleman,
Free version?
30 day trial or something?
I did not see anything on there site about free.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 08:54:18 AM · #5 |
No, the "trial" does not expire. But you can only save at abyssmal quality levels, and limited size, at least that's how it used to be.
It *is* worth buying though. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 08:55:00 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by lakota:
Southern Gentleman,
Free version?
30 day trial or something?
I did not see anything on there site about free.
Thanks. |
If you download the trial version for 30 days once the trial version is over you can continue to use the stand alone feature but not the plug-in version.
ETA: I'm using Neat Image 5.6 Demo / Standalone version. I can use it on full size images
Message edited by author 2006-12-18 08:58:42. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 08:55:18 AM · #7 |
 
They were about th same graininess originally. Guess which one is NI'd.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:20:33 AM · #8 |
We had used the trial version for quite some time but because of how small you need to make your image before it works we just went ahead and got the full plugin version. The trial version is really quite good considering the size issue. It is a plugin for PS so you dont have to open a new program to use it. For us it was 50 bucks well spent to get the full plug in version.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:22:30 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
We had used the trial version for quite some time but because of how small you need to make your image before it works we just went ahead and got the full plugin version. The trial version is really quite good considering the size issue. It is a plugin for PS so you dont have to open a new program to use it. For us it was 50 bucks well spent to get the full plug in version. |
I downloaded the trial version about a year ago, but it's a stand-alone program. It doesn't seem to have any size limitation. (?)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:39:29 AM · #10 |
The plugin has a functionality that's worth the price; since it works within PS, you can define the areas you want to smooth. This is a BIG plus.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:43:56 AM · #11 |
I had used a trial version right on up to purchasing the big version and it was a plugin all the way - you just had to resize your image to below 1000 pixels to affect the entire area.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:47:32 AM · #12 |
The thing about NI - if you use it properly you shouldn't be able to tell it was used - so 'showing' how well NI works is difficult. If you can 'see' it, it wasn't used well.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:49:47 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by idnic:
The thing about NI - if you use it properly you shouldn't be able to tell it was used - so 'showing' how well NI works is difficult. If you can 'see' it, it wasn't used well. |
huh? then why use it?
You should see it was used, but you do not have to destroy all the details in the image by "neating" them too much
Message edited by author 2006-12-18 09:50:32.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:50:48 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by idnic:
The thing about NI - if you use it properly you shouldn't be able to tell it was used - so 'showing' how well NI works is difficult. If you can 'see' it, it wasn't used well. |
Not if you're comparing before-and-afters, Cindi. Otherwise what would be the point? You're correct that, viewed by itself, an image should not "look" like it's been NI'd.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 09:52:29 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by anotherday:
Originally posted by idnic:
The thing about NI - if you use it properly you shouldn't be able to tell it was used - so 'showing' how well NI works is difficult. If you can 'see' it, it wasn't used well. |
huh? then why use it?
You should see it was used, but you do not have to destroy all the details in the image by "neating" them too much |
You shouldn't be able to tell by looking only at the finished photo. However, if you put it next to the original you would be able to tell.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 12:32:49 AM EST.
