| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2004 03:58:54 PM · #1 |
| I have noticed that several people use neat image in there post processing! I need to know if it makes your pictures sharper? Let me know what your thoughts are on this software! |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 04:00:56 PM · #2 |
it does the opposite - it smooths out texture. Or atleast that's the most common use, maybe there are others. I've personally never used it since I don't like it.
There are about 1000 Neat Image threads that should be archived on here. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 04:03:49 PM · #3 |
I used Neat Image in a current challenge, although I much preferred the 'grain' in the original shot. I am convinced that my score is much better because I whored myself to the smooth-photo lovers!
And that makes me smile...
Edit: I wonder, if I submit it to DPC prints, can I submit the un-Neat Imaged photo? That's what I would prefer to sell as a print...
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 16:04:37. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 04:41:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Edit: I wonder, if I submit it to DPC prints, can I submit the un-Neat Imaged photo? That's what I would prefer to sell as a print... |
Yes, the print image associated with that entry can be edited completely differently. A new preview will be generated from the print file for people browsing the Prints site, so they will know what the print looks like. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 04:43:52 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Edit: I wonder, if I submit it to DPC prints, can I submit the un-Neat Imaged photo? That's what I would prefer to sell as a print... |
Yes, the print image associated with that entry can be edited completely differently. A new preview will be generated from the print file for people browsing the Prints site, so they will know what the print looks like. |
Thanks, General... |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:05:17 PM · #6 |
NI also has a sharpening alforithm - in fact, a far more sophisticated sharpening algorithm than USM, much more tune-able. As is the noise removal part of the program. Many many people do not understand how to use it properly, and jibe about it because they've only seen the 'out-of-the-box' results. It needs learning, and is a great tool, IMO.
E
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:07:42 PM · #7 |
I had to use it on all my DSWF prints on sale in DPC Prints because they were taken on film and scanned for me by processors and the noise was not lovely film grain but digital noise.
I was subtle with it's use so as not to lose texture and detail.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:20:53 PM · #8 |
| it's a wonderful joyous piece of software, and free! though, i must make myself purchase it, and be able to integrate it with photoshop, which i understand you can. it's oh so easy to overdo, and like e301 said, takes a lot of learning... it's amazing what it can do with a seemingly dead looking shot. it also helps you appreciate grain effects more too for particular moods, for it gives you the choice to erradicate it or keep it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:23:20 PM · #9 |
I paid for the pro version David - after about a year's use it seemed the least I could do. Promise you it's even better as a plug-in ... being able to preview setttings, which i don't recall from the free version, is exceptionally useful.
E
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:29:18 PM · #10 |
I recently purchased the pro version too, simply because it is now a plugin to CS, worth every penny to be able to just NI the background on a shot. I'm sure you can do this with masks etc but I'm lazy and its a cheap addition to your armoury. another great feature of actualy paying for it is the fact you can change the luminosity of the NI'd layer (gold, weight and worth are 3 words that spring to mind ;)
Any bad press it gets is from misuse imho (I'm still learning).
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:35:44 PM · #11 |
I've tried to use it a few times but it gets too smooth all the time.
Any tutorial on how to use it and the diffrent ways you can use it?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:37:48 PM · #12 |
I have the pro version too, though haven't integrated it with photoshop... how does that work then.
Says Kavey the IT Trainer who hasn't herself bothered to read the fucking manual!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:38:13 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by siggi:
I've tried to use it a few times but it gets too smooth all the time.
Any tutorial on how to use it and the diffrent ways you can use it? |
There used to be plenty on their site. Failing that, try 'help'.
E
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:42:50 PM · #14 |
will the home version decrease the resolution of my images? the biggest difference I can see between pro and home is that pro offers "Support for 16-bit images", so if I buy the home version, will that effect my pics? I have a sony 828 and shoot jpeg. I don't even know if my images are 16 bit.
drake
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:43:33 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:46:35 PM · #16 |
The free version re-compresses your shots on saving - that's the bigggest down-side. The pro (plug-in) version is just that - a plug-in, so it's just part of the process.
I really cannot stress enough to everyone how much it is worth paying the money.
E
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:56:35 PM · #17 |
Thinking of NI: The only time I wish I had a PC instead of a Mac!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 06:04:02 PM · #18 |
I use NeatImage to remove jpeg noise from some images and to sharpen others and I think it works just fine. I liked it so well I bought the Pro version.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 06:43:34 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I have the pro version too, though haven't integrated it with photoshop... how does that work then.
Says Kavey the IT Trainer who hasn't herself bothered to read the fucking manual! |
lol @ RTFM!
There again, I can't remember if it installed automatically or if I had to drop it into C:/program files/adobe/cs/plugins then go to filters/neatimage to play
Says the software configuration, stragetic software release manager
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 06:50:43 PM · #20 |
| For most Mac programs (desktop publishing type) I was advised "don't read the manual, you'll just get confused." I would read them anyway, which may explain a lot (like why I'm writing this on a PC). |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 10:17:45 PM · #21 |
I use Neatimage all the time and love its noise reducing abilities as well as its sharpening alg. (but I most admit my primary use of it is to reduce noise).
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 10:22:59 PM · #22 |
| I started using neatimage recently and find that it dramatically decreases noise.... some photos are like night and day with low light conditions/high iso etc. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 01:00:46 AM · #23 |
I noticed, since I've been reading the forums here, that everyone talks about Neat Image.
I've used it and now use NoiseWare because the processing is quicker and I don't see much of a difference.
Is there something I don't see that makes Neat Image better than NoiseWare? |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 01:43:04 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by fstopopen:
will the home version decrease the resolution of my images? the biggest difference I can see between pro and home is that pro offers "Support for 16-bit images", so if I buy the home version, will that effect my pics? I have a sony 828 and shoot jpeg. I don't even know if my images are 16 bit.
drake |
Nope, the home version will not screw up your jpeg images. They are 8-bit already. The real disadvantage of the home version is the lack of the Photoshop plug-in mode. That is a real advantage where you want to reduce noise in only a portion of the image. In order to get the same effect with the home version, you need to process thewhole image, then copy it to a new layer on top of the original, then mask it... you get the picture. The pro version is worth it, IMO. |
|
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: 08/10/2025 07:41:48 AM EDT.
