Neat Image or Noise Ninja - DPChallenge Forums

10/05/2008 04:13:54 PM · #3

I have neat image, I like it....though I know nothing about noise ninja. I have the Pro+ version with the plug in for CS3 and PSPX2 (I use both)...as well as the stand alone (the plugin gets used 99.9% of the time). Its very easy to use and I have no gripes about it.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/05/2008 04:35:52 PM · #4

I use Neatimage and like it, but saying that I have never used Noise Ninja but by all accounts its just as good.

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

10/05/2008 06:24:44 PM · #5

I've tried both and settled on noise ninja as i found it slightly easier to use, both gave pretty much the same results. both have free trials and take a couple of minutes to install so give them a try.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

10/05/2008 06:46:07 PM · #6

I use neatimage when photoshop's noise reduction doesn't seem to cut the mustard. Which is rare.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

10/05/2008 06:52:29 PM · #7

As I always answer to this same thread every time, throw them both away. If it is a skin softener you are after, then the Kodak Airbrush beats both those plugins hands down!

10/05/2008 06:55:15 PM · #8

I have both as plug ins. I cant remember the last time I actually used Neat Image. It was my choice for a long time. Until friend helped me use Noise Ninja, now its the only one I use.

Matt

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/05/2008 11:05:53 PM · #9

Originally posted by MattO:

I have both as plug ins. I cant remember the last time I actually used Neat Image. It was my choice for a long time. Until friend helped me use Noise Ninja, now its the only one I use.

Matt

Why?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/05/2008 11:08:59 PM · #10

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Originally posted by MattO:
I have both as plug ins. I cant remember the last time I actually used Neat Image. It was my choice for a long time. Until friend helped me use Noise Ninja, now its the only one I use.

Matt

Why?

Noise Ninja keeps much more detail, has finer controls and I can fine tune anything that I need too. I routinely run almost all of my prints through it even ISO 50 or 100 for the sharpening and contrast. IMHO its just the better choice, for me.

Matt

Message edited by author 2008-10-05 23:09:12.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

10/05/2008 11:15:27 PM · #11

Originally posted by sjl2116:

I use Noiseware.

BeckyT

Nikon D300s

10/05/2008 11:19:27 PM · #12

I use noise ninja. It seems to give my photos the final touch that I need. I usually run all my photos through at various stages.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/05/2008 11:42:11 PM · #13

Photoshop's noise reduction filter is pretty underrated. I've been using it pretty much as my all purpose noise reducer and skin smoother. I've used neatimage and noise ninja in the past and those are good too, but I find I have to do too much work with them to get the results I want.

Message edited by author 2008-10-05 23:42:59.

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/06/2008 07:10:22 AM · #14

Wow this thread kicked off pretty good for a repeat thread and the OP never came back

ganders

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

10/06/2008 07:19:23 AM · #15

Originally posted by MattO:

I routinely run almost all of my prints through it even ISO 50 or 100 for the sharpening and contrast. IMHO its just the better choice, for me.

I'm stunned that you're needing to use noise reduction at that kind of ISO. While I try and stick to 100, if I need to I'll happily switch down as far as ISO800 and I can't remember the last time I actually needed to fire up Neat Image (actually it's not even installed on this PC, I've not used it for so long)

Are you heavily processing or cropping or something?

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/06/2008 07:44:58 AM · #16

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by MattO:
I routinely run almost all of my prints through it even ISO 50 or 100 for the sharpening and contrast. IMHO its just the better choice, for me.

I'm stunned that you're needing to use noise reduction at that kind of ISO. While I try and stick to 100, if I need to I'll happily switch down as far as ISO800 and I can't remember the last time I actually needed to fire up Neat Image (actually it's not even installed on this PC, I've not used it for so long)

Are you heavily processing or cropping or something?

Depends on what you are shooting, often I find heavy bokeh looks better after some noise ninja even at ISO 100 whereas busier shots are fine at much higher ISO's

togtog

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/06/2008 07:58:33 AM · #17

I've tried both, Ninja resulted in more consistent noise reduction and much finer control in my experience.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/06/2008 09:51:53 AM · #18

Originally posted by ganders:

Apparently you have never used Noise Ninja, it isnt about the noise reduction. I can show you smooth clean 3200 ISO shots with proper exposure. Its about the way it processes the file for contrast, sharpening and so forth. You might be suprised.

Matt

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

10/06/2008 10:02:23 AM · #19

Thanks for the help, I have downloaded trials of both of them and to for myself. I should have done a search in the forums to see what already been written, but I was feeling a bit lazy. I will let you guys known the conclusion I reach. I just started my work day, but when I get home tonight, I will play around with them.

ganders

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

10/06/2008 10:28:57 AM · #20

Originally posted by MattO:

You're right - I've never used it. But the thread started off with a question about noise reduction, so I assumed that's what we were talking about. I'm sure it's useful when you're up at 3200; I was specifically curious about you saying you used it routinely down at 50 or 100 ISO.

In terms of contrast and sharpening, well, it seems a little odd to be having a seperate chunk of software (and one built primarily for NR) to do stuff for me that Lightroom is exceedingly good at.

Bujanx

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

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

10/06/2008 11:00:27 AM · #21

Ha, I read the title as 'Neat Image of Noisy Ninja' and came to post that it was impossible to take a picture of a ninja!

*goes to get more coffee*

10/06/2008 11:13:33 AM · #22

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by MattO:
Apparently you have never used Noise Ninja, it isnt about the noise reduction. I can show you smooth clean 3200 ISO shots with proper exposure. Its about the way it processes the file for contrast, sharpening and so forth. You might be suprised.

You're right - I've never used it. But the thread started off with a question about noise reduction, so I assumed that's what we were talking about. I'm sure it's useful when you're up at 3200; I was specifically curious about you saying you used it routinely down at 50 or 100 ISO.

In terms of contrast and sharpening, well, it seems a little odd to be having a seperate chunk of software (and one built primarily for NR) to do stuff for me that Lightroom is exceedingly good at.

As a plugin, its not seperate, and can perform more then one task.......and its alot cheaper then lightroom. :D But each person has to develop their own workflow to see what works for them.

Matt

ganders