| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2004 12:53:18 AM · #1 |
I used Neat Image on my entry Reflected Purple to clean up some color noise on the front of the star. It's my first time to use this and I'm not entirely sure whether it enhanced the photo or it made it look artificial. None of the commenters mentioned it but when I showed it to two friends, they both said it didn't look real (they don't use neat image) though it did fairly well in the challenge. Still just wanna get feedback on neatimage.
I used the demo version, Noise Reduction Luminance Channel set to about 35%, all other settings at default. At first it was set at 60% (default) but I didn't like how it looked and lowered it.
I'll purchase this software soon but I don't think I'll use it a lot. Do you think the home version is sufficient for removing a few noise.
BTW, the star is a shiny metal and I used window light to reflect the purple from the board which is facing the light. The shiny background is the surface of a stainless coffee maker.
Congrats to all the ribbon winners, too and thanks to those who commented on my entry.
enough rambling.....
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 02:14:07 AM · #2 |
I know what you mean by the "artificial" look. Neat Image seems to work much better for some photos than for others. Sometines it takes too much out of an image and leaves it looking devoid of detail, but other times this looks really appropriate as it did on your "Reflected Purple". One of my commenters used the words "bizarrely plastic" for this one
which I could understand; but I liked the windswept look it gave to the sand in this one
 .
There have been times when I was wondering if an image was good enough to enter and became convinced after seeing the NI filtered version. Sometimes NI can salvage a mediocre pic. I'm still using the demo and learning as I go along. I tend to like the results best when I use it after editing but before resizing for the challenges, but am not sure if that is really the reccommended workflow.
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 02:16:24. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 02:27:50 AM · #3 |
| I just bought a version of NeatImage, I don't know how I got along without it before. I would recommend not sticking with the "Demo" version, it doesn't save the JPEG file at as high of resolution as it could, so you lose more from your photo. The "Home+" version allows you to make it a Photoshop plug-in, which has many advantages. The only advantage to using the "Pro" version is being able to do larger batches and queus of photos. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 02:44:53 AM · #4 |
Thanks coolhar. I like those two you attached. I think some photos really benefit from it. I can see though why some get carried away with it. I think it's best to be easy on it and use it sparingly.
Thanks briphoto for the heads up. I haven't done my reading but I think I'll get the Home+.
At what point during processing do I use NI?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 03:14:36 AM · #5 |
| I'm not an expert, but I've been doing it as my next to last step in Photoshop, right before sharpening. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 12:58:39 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
08/03/2004 06:36:00 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by briphoto:
I'm not an expert, but I've been doing it as my next to last step in Photoshop, right before sharpening. |
Please everyone (edit: apparently myself included...), read the Neat Image manual (PDF: //www.neatimage.net/files/NIUGv4.0.zip), and follow the instructions carefully before bashing it, I see so many people complain about its results when they don't even understand how to use the thing.
edit: I was incorrect about the best time to do the NI processing.
Message edited by author 2004-08-03 19:28:10. |
|
|
|
08/03/2004 07:07:59 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by skylen:
Originally posted by briphoto:
I'm not an expert, but I've been doing it as my next to last step in Photoshop, right before sharpening. |
NOOOOOOO!!
That's wrong. It does depend on if you're using the image itself to create the noise profile or a real noise profile set created for your camera. If you use a camera profile, then your image, if you've modified it in Photoshop at all (curves, contrast, sharpness, whatever), will not have the same noise profile as the camera anymore and Neat Image will do a terrible job at removing the noise.
If you use a noise profile generated from the image you're working on, it will work a little better than if you use the camera profile, because Neat Image is getting the right profile at least, but profiles taken from "regular" images are not as complete or accurate as profile sets made from calibration charts. Download profile sets for your camera from NeatImage.com.
The main thing is that the noise profile must be created from an image with identical processing to the image you're trying to remove the noise from, for maximum quality.
NEAT IMAGE IS BEST APPLIED TO DIRECT-FROM-CAMERA IMAGES.
If you shoot raw, then you'll have to convert to TIFF or BMP first (don't use JPEG, it loses quality), but be consistent in your processing steps for everything before Neat Image does its thing.
Neat Image has a good sharpening algorithm too, that apparently uses the noise profile to avoid sharpening any remaining noise as well.
Please everyone, read the Neat Image manual (PDF: //www.neatimage.net/files/NIUGv4.0.zip), and follow the instructions carefully before bashing it, I see so many people complain about its results when they don't even understand how to use the thing. |
Actually, if you read the manual, you'd see that the best way to use NeatImage is to use it just before sharpening as the next to last step, providing you have a large enough flat area to sample. Using noise profiles is not the most prefered way of using NeatImage according to the manual.
Message edited by author 2004-08-03 19:15:37. |
|
|
|
08/03/2004 07:24:22 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Actually, if you read the manual, you'd see that the best way to use NeatImage is to use it just before sharpening as the next to last step, providing you have a large enough flat area to sample. Using noise profiles is not the most prefered way of using NeatImage according to the manual. |
Okay, you are right. I checked back with the manual and it says that if there are is a large enough uniform featureless area, that using the source image to create a noise profile is the preferred way to do it. I've had images this doesn't work well on, but for a lot of images I guess this would be the way to go. |
|
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: 10/16/2025 07:22:59 AM EDT.
