How did I ever live without Neat Image?

03/08/2004 11:31:31 PM · #1

I just downloaded my copy of the software tonight and have been using it on some really grainy night photographs... WOW! I'm amazed. It's magic...I guess now I just need to learn how to use it correctly. Anyone have any pointers? What to do or not to do?

Message edited by author 2004-03-08 23:31:46.

AFViper

Canon EOS-30D

03/08/2004 11:45:13 PM · #2

I am no expert on this program. One of the most important things to do is when you get a noise profile for your camera get one from a plain background, like a plain blue sky. I think different ISOs matter, so make a profile for every ISO. You don't want to overdo it unless you want an image that appears to have soft focus. I would suggest you go here: //www.neatimage.com/howtos.html this should answer most of your questions.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/08/2004 11:47:50 PM · #3

Thanks, I'll check that page. I've been playing around with it and it is pretty easy to end up with a soft focus look...which could be cool if that's what you're going for. Now I understand what people mean by something being "neat imaged to death"

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/09/2004 12:34:45 AM · #4

Originally posted by kellian:

If you've come to an understanding of "neat imaged to death" after one evening, you are doing great.
In addition to using a noise profile for each different ISO value for your camera, which is the only way to fly, I suggest...

- NeatImage only the portion of the photo that needs it; this can only be accomplished by using the PS plug-in version though, and masking off the portions where you don't want to apply it (with broad feathering!).
- Set the amount to between -5% to -10% for high-frequency, -10% to -15% for mid frequency, and -15% to -20% for low frequency. I find this leaves just a bit of noise, and looks much more natural.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/09/2004 12:52:43 AM · #5

I'm getting that some images with intense noise can't be completely fixed without causing a VERY soft image. (I was taking long exposure photos tonight and I took a few at ISO400 to see what would happen) I ended up with these terribly grainy images (I mean grain so bright they look like stars!) I haven't been able to fix these, granted, they are just experimental and I ended up with much better photos from the session with different settings, but I just wanted to see if I could fix them. So far no luck without them looking very, very, very soft. But for mild noise... outstanding! I like the idea of masking off areas that don't need it. That's a good idea.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/09/2004 01:35:55 AM · #6

Kellian,

You did not specify if you bought the version with the PS plugin (Or even if you use PS for that matter) or not.

Kirbic is right, the plugin expands the power of Neatimage immensely. Not only can you apply it from within PS, but you can apply it only to selected areas.

It is not a miracle worker, but is amazing when applied to people's faces in portraits.

Whoops... Did I say Portraits? How convenient. There just happens to be a portrait challenge going on right now. What an amazing coincidence!

Koriyama

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

03/09/2004 10:14:54 AM · #7

I got neat image (stand-alone version) for Christmas, studied it, went through the overkill phase, got reasonably acquainted with its more subtle applications, and haven't used it since.

Using PS gaussian blurs and noise reductions, I find that I can create better results. This is, however, possibly due to the ability to select in PS, a feature lacking in the stand-alone version.

kent

Olympus E-10

03/09/2004 11:12:21 AM · #8

Anyone else got an opinion about Neat Image vs. Photoshop for noise reduction? Having never used Neat I'm curious!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/09/2004 11:35:25 AM · #9

Originally posted by AFViper:

The calibration target at that link is real useful for profiling a digital camera. Just print it out and shoot it at each ISO, under each lighting condition and for each resolution setting you are going to use, then make the profiles you need. Works great.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

03/09/2004 11:48:35 AM · #10

It's ok for fun pics such as DPC stuff, but for printing or high quality artwork I dislike it.

One tip that is in the instructions is to only ever select the noise area such as the sky or background. Obvious if you read instructions but I never do.

I does tend to add a dreamy effect to images even on low settings and can be tiresome to get it just right. I sold an image yesterday to a company for Â£300 and it was full of noise (which for that price they would not be happy about) which wasn't visable on the small sample I gave them. So for that i tend to airbrush by hand and blend in via PS. Takes more time, but results are more bespoke.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/09/2004 11:49:55 AM · #11

Originally posted by jonpink:

So for that i tend to airbrush by hand and blend in via PS. Takes more time, but results are more bespoke.

You could always neatimage a duplicate layer, then airbrush a mask to blend it by hand - might be easier ?