DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> survey please
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/03/2004 02:39:36 PM · #1
i would like to know the general feeling of photographers
whether 'neat image' improves a photo or not?

[purely selfish reasons, for next challenge] lol

personally i quite like to see grain on some pictures.
 08/03/2004 02:49:31 PM · #2
depends on the image and how it is used.
 08/03/2004 02:55:16 PM · #3
Depends on the image and how it is used.
 08/03/2004 02:57:55 PM · #4
Originally posted by louddog:
depends on the image and how it is used.


Definitely agree with this. Some images do look better with grain, others not.

For some images I have had to experiment with other methods, sometimes using Gaussian blur, and sometimes finding ways to Neatimage parts of an image. Of course the last option is no good for basic rules challenges.
 08/03/2004 02:58:55 PM · #5
Neat image used carefully improves many pictures, it can also spoil them if not used correctly.I prepare many of my shots as if I was going to use for a print, personally I think the end result doesn't want to be too noisy, it doesn't go well with the larger prints, for me of course, up to now that is :)
 08/03/2004 03:05:16 PM · #6
I find NeatImage to be a very versatile tool which can be of benefit on many images (certainly not all). I use it mostly selectively, in Adobe® Photoshop® plug-in mode. I find that applying it to the image as a whole rarely achieves what I want. Mostly I want to remove some noise from selected "bothersome" areas such as sky or a uniform OOF background.
 08/03/2004 03:14:36 PM · #7
[Of course the last option is no good for basic rules challenges.]

really! i thought you could use neat image, as long as whatever changes
you make, to the whole photograph. no spotting. what am i missing?
tell me before i get disqualified again.......
 08/03/2004 03:21:03 PM · #8
Originally posted by goodman:
[Of course the last option is no good for basic rules challenges.]

really! i thought you could use neat image, as long as whatever changes
you make, to the whole photograph. no spotting. what am i missing?
tell me before i get disqualified again.......


I believe they are talking about the selective application of NeatImage.

I don't use it (no Mac version) but I agree - carefully used it can improve a photo. But I hate the plastic effect when it's overused.
 08/03/2004 03:43:06 PM · #9
I dislike grain in most cases. NeatImage used, as others have said, *carefully* improves most images. It's easy to bump that Luminance Noise Removal slider just a bit too high, though. Make sure you're using the best possible noise profile for your camera also (I make my own for maximum accuracy), and processing the image straight from the camera.
 08/03/2004 03:54:55 PM · #10
I do agree that if used 'right' can improve an image. But having said that I do have a feeling that, grainy or not, there are people who use NeatImage on every sigle image for no obvious reason and destroy pretty good ones. Ask yourself why you want to use it. Compare before / after images.
 08/03/2004 03:55:10 PM · #11
It really depends of the image but in general I prefere grain to neatimage. It gives the image that flat plastic look, it consumes the natural textures and detail. In some rare cases that can look good but usualy I dislike it. If I'm to choose between that and noise I choose noise. In fact in many of my images I did not have noise originaly but I created it because I really like the old mood it gives especially to b/w images.

PS. I never use it, I tried it a few times, but I might when I will feel it will be right to.

Message edited by author 2004-08-03 15:57:20.
 08/03/2004 04:14:48 PM · #12
Originally posted by skylen:
I dislike grain in most cases.


I think it's too broad to say grain is good or bad. Many magazine ads, posters, and gallery photos use grain to achieve a specific effect. (think about the teenage target market and ads you've seen directed at that market)

If you have unintentional grain, that's one thing, but many of us add grain to images to get a "look."
08/03/2004 04:30:08 PM · #13
Originally posted by TooCool:
Depends on the image and how it is used.


Ditto
08/03/2004 04:30:26 PM · #14
I like to maintain a distinction between grain and noise. To me, digital noise coming off my camera's sensor is, well, icky. It usually happens in broad areas of color that, for whatever reason, couldn't be rendered properly by the camera. Grain, on the other hand, I love--when used as a way to effect the feel of a shot. I use NeatImage almost exlusively to get rid of the unwanted noise, but never as a way to essentially lower an ISO setting's effect on a shot by removing the grain inherent in high ISO shots.

But that's just me.
 08/03/2004 05:30:06 PM · #15
Originally posted by bledford:
I like to maintain a distinction between grain and noise. To me, digital noise coming off my camera's sensor is, well, icky. It usually happens in broad areas of color that, for whatever reason, couldn't be rendered properly by the camera. Grain, on the other hand, I love--when used as a way to effect the feel of a shot. I use NeatImage almost exlusively to get rid of the unwanted noise, but never as a way to essentially lower an ISO setting's effect on a shot by removing the grain inherent in high ISO shots.

But that's just me.


I disagree that you can make a distinction between the "grain" at ISO 100 and "noise" at ISO 1600. Grain produced _by_the_camera_ is signal noise. There is simply more noise at ISO 1600 than at ISO 100, because the camera is amplifying the signal so much more, that the noise increases as well.

Now, if you add grain using a Photoshop filter, it's noise too, mathematically speaking, but you have control of this grain. The CCD noise that digital camera images have is simply a result of non-perfect technology and not intentional injection, even though it can be used for artistic purposes very successfully.

The great thing about Neat Image is that it learns about the CCD noise profile of your camera and can remove most of the noise without removing details of texture in the image. IF USED PROPERLY it can remove 98% of the noise without damaging the details that were part of the scene, because CCD noise has a relatively consistent pattern. Occasionally, finely textured surfaces can get smoothed out too much if they happen to be close to the CCD noise pattern, but I haven't personally had a problem with this, if you don't crank up the sliders in NI above the recommended levels. Read the Neat Image manual (you can download the PDF), it has lots of good advice, and use the preview function to carefully examine the noise at 100% zoom as you tweak the settings on a particular image.

There's no black or white, it's all about how strongly and how skillfully Neat Image is applied to a particular image. If you maximize the noise removal, you will have the most plasticy looking image ever. If you turn down the settings, nothing will change. Usually you want something in the middle somewhere.

edit: typo

Message edited by author 2004-08-03 17:34:32.
 08/03/2004 06:01:40 PM · #16
Originally posted by skylen:
I disagree that you can make a distinction between the "grain" at ISO 100 and "noise" at ISO 1600. Grain produced _by_the_camera_ is signal noise. There is simply more noise at ISO 1600 than at ISO 100, because the camera is amplifying the signal so much more, that the noise increases as well.

Hmmm, I think you and I are in agreement, but my wording may have thrown you off. What I was simply saying is that image noise as a corollary to ISO adjustment is different, in my mind, than selective image noise as a function of the sensor/scene/color space/shooting mode(RAW,JPG). I like to remove the latter with NeatImage, using the noise profiles in the way you mention. Though, too often you see people trying to make an ISO 800 shot into an ISO 200 shot.
 08/03/2004 06:13:16 PM · #17
I use Alien Skin Image doctor and I find it a more usefull set of tools for the pictures that i consider too noisy.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 10:22:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/17/2025 10:22:09 AM EDT.