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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Ease up on Neat Image
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 48 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/01/2004 04:55:59 PM · #26
I don't have it and I don't even plan to get it. I have used something similar just once and that's for the current challenge 'Framing'. I thought I needed to get rid of a few pixels floating around.
Some people have made NI part of their workflow even when they are using pretty good cameras, shooting at ISO 50 or 100 in bright daylight and the shots straight from camera look crystal clear. Of course you can use it on every image, but do you really need to?
I don't think the problem is down to using NI alone. Yes I have seen some images where human skin looked like a stretched rubber. But there's a bigger problem with sharpening, I think. You continously come across images with halos all over. And these images are not only from a beginner trying out a new tool, they come from multiple ribbon winners too. In some images the main subject look like it's a cardboard cut-out. It could have come from some software to reduce noise like NI or USM in Photoshop or the camera itself.
There's this thing about digital and sharpness. Some people have this idea that if your camera boasts more mega pixels, your images should look a lot sharper and that makes it a better photograph. Some people think that photographs should look that way. Period.
I think it's all down to your interests in photography. Do you want to create an image of max. 640px on DPC with no visible pixels at any magnification :) where a lot of voters would say wow that's so smooth and silky, or do you really want to create something you could use for other purposes, like a decent print.

I think I'll stop now.
 09/01/2004 04:58:15 PM · #27
Yes DrJones ... exactly what I'm thinking. Well said.
 09/01/2004 05:04:26 PM · #28
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
NEAT IMAGE sure is a great software to get rid of digial noise and will create super cool skins. But too much of a good thing is, well, too much of a good thing. Ultra plastic skins is not what I call interesting to the eye. For instance, lots of peeople here post photographs of kids. I love these shots. Kids are great! Kids also have ULTRA SMOOTH SKIN to begin with. Use strong NEAT IMAGE on these kids and they start to look like aliens to me.


Great Post.

My analogy, however strange this sounds, would be the "knives" in a Chef's kitchen. A Chef will "lock-n-key" his or her best knives. When asked why, the Chef will tell you, "because they are sharp."

Sounds a bit strange, but a real kitchen knife is dangerous, and I think that's what you are saying here Dr. Jones about Neat Image.

A chef will not leave out his or her knife, because he understands that the knife is capable of taking off the tip of someone's finger without them even feeling it.

Such is the point with Neat Image. Unless you know exactly what you are doing with it, you probably do not have any business using it. I have found through my own work that Neat Image requires a fine touch. I have also found that Noise Profiles work well for a first pass, but once I process an image in PS, it helps to bring it back into NI to address any additional noise.

N.I. shouldn̢۪t be written off, but requires education. And with that, I̢۪ll send it back to Dr. Jones for a request for a quick tutorial or lessons learned.

How do you handle individual adjustments in N.I.?
What are you strategies for not overdoing it?

09/01/2004 05:07:08 PM · #29
I have never used NI but recently had a challenge entry comment that stated that too much NI was used on the skin on my subject.
I took it as a compliment.
 09/01/2004 05:24:14 PM · #30
Originally posted by keegbow:
I have never used NI but recently had a challenge entry comment that stated that too much NI was used on the skin on my subject.
I took it as a compliment.


Same here, one of my challenge entry surely got voted down because of it in the ffet challenge, No NI, and 5-6 comments on how I used too much of it. I didn't take it as a compliment though :)
 09/01/2004 06:09:52 PM · #31
Originally posted by DJLuba:
N.I. shouldn̢۪t be written off, but requires education. And with that, I̢۪ll send it back to Dr. Jones for a request for a quick tutorial or lessons learned.

How do you handle individual adjustments in N.I.?
What are you strategies for not overdoing it?


Hmmm... I usually do an auto profile scan of the image in NI. Then I play with the level of how it will affect the final image (The Y button in NOISE FILTER SETTINGS). Usually, between 30 to 40 for ultra smooth skin for glamour imagery, under 25 for regular shots. I also adjust the sharpening in NI. I look at my previews before processing the image. Then I process it. If it's over done, then I redo it. Sometimes I will use NI on a new layer. I aim for a certain texture skin. When I get it, I process the image. Then I can erase parts of the layer where I want to bring back some details lost with NI.

Things like that.

Most of all, it's all about experimenting with the software. Also, there are great tutorials on the Neat Image website.

Martin
 09/01/2004 07:42:35 PM · #32
I love NI. It rocks to remove noise in the background. I never use more than 35-40% though. You really want to watch it on humans. I used it here to add to a surreal impact:




09/01/2004 07:50:09 PM · #33
I'm glad I don't know yet what neat image is. If it makes people look fake or like plastic then I don't want to know what it is and really don't like it. My favorite film to shoot was 3200 Tmax, so I guess I'm still a grain fan and learning how to apply it properly with digital.
 09/01/2004 07:53:52 PM · #34
Originally posted by Jacko:
I love NI. It rocks to remove noise in the background. I never use more than 35-40% though. You really want to watch it on humans.


I agree. I used it in the current challenge to give a surreal look to my photo and I'm getting comments like "too much neat image" and I'm like.. DUH! ;o)
 09/01/2004 07:58:36 PM · #35
Oh, and I have other images I used NI on, and you wouldn't know it.

09/01/2004 08:04:38 PM · #36
i rarely use NI, and when i do, its just barely. the plastic look bugs me too much at the high levels.
 09/01/2004 09:27:12 PM · #37
neat image... ***shutter***

Just say no people...

~A
 09/01/2004 10:00:40 PM · #38
Originally posted by Photomama:
neat image... ***shutter***

Just say no people...

~A

There is nothing inherently wrong with using NeatImage. I think the problem is, as DrJones has stated, that sometimes it is used way too heavily. As with any other tool, it has to be used correctly to achieve good results. If it is used correctly it can greatly improve an image, and if not used correctly it can ruin an image.

I used NI on this photo, and, although probably not the best example, I certainly don't think that it ruined the image. I think the full size image looks much better after using NeatImage.


I think that NeatImage works especially well on photos of objects that are already smooth and plastic looking, such as glass, wet surfaces, flowers, etc., etc..

In my opinion, NeatImage is a great tool. I certainly won't say no.

09/01/2004 10:03:10 PM · #39
Interesting original post By DrJones.
I do not like NI period and I never use it. Its over use is much like the um..where does one stop? I always suggest to work at original pixel size. The same applies to dodging and burning. These are dangerous tools because any excessive burning actually contaminates the tonal value. I use all of these tool sparingly and I never use plug-ins. Like what true purpose do they serve but to make work idenfiable by the filter.

My suggestion is to learn the expert use of levels on the actual channels as well as curves. To make softer skin, you make a layer and use gaussean blur to a satisfactory degree then subract from this layer the parts you want exta sharp and then apply the opacity to the desired level. What I mean is, learn the basic tools. Say you have an image that was underexposed, make a copy layer and apply it in multiply mode. Merge the layers and then start adjustments whether levels or curves.

But to return to topic, a lot of images on DPC have that surreal look where expert PS operators detect abuse. None of these plug-ins are going to improve your image if it lacks quality and you can easily render an image with that processed look. Now, with some digital art images this is part of their make-up, but I believe this is not the output DPC prides itself. Pentacle is the most processed image I have submitted and yet rhe whole thing is a gaussean blur applied heavily on the background. There was nothing else done to the image. No burning, no dodging. The Blue Moon Sax image only had clone to remove lamp fixture. The rest was done with lights, excepting the halo accentuation around the moon.

Message edited by author 2004-09-01 23:45:24.
 09/01/2004 10:19:12 PM · #40
I've never used neat image or any similar tool (mac baby) but I think some of my images would definately be helped by a tool like that. alot of my private work is dreamy, and the plastic like effect you've all talked about would fit right in. I absolutely agree with graphicfunk about learning your tools
 09/02/2004 12:01:04 AM · #41
I really didn't meant to imply that NI should never be used, only that some should take Nancy's advice and just say "NO" because they are overdosing.

I tried NI a while ago, and didn't like the results I got from it enough to move beyond the demo. Maybe I could try some again, maybe some other product like DFine or something else, I dunno.

I mostly shoot RAW and have found the Noise Suppression within C1 to give me enough without going overboard and I don't have to think too much. (I have plenty of other stuff to worry about)
 09/02/2004 02:22:04 AM · #42
Originally posted by annasense:
What version of PS are you using? I don't see "stamp visible layers." I'm on a Mac, using CS. :) Can you point me in the right direction, because this sounds like something I need to be doing. Thanks in advance!!

From the Photoshop CS help file

"To stamp all visible layers:

Select the layer or layer set that you want to contain the new contents, and press Shift+Ctrl+Alt+E (Windows) or Shift+Command+Option+E (Mac OS).

alternately, you can hold down Alt (Windows) or Option (Mac OS), and choose Layer > Merge Visible. The modified Merge command merges all the visible data into the current target layer."

***

I tried NI for a while a few months back, but never really had much success with it. Sure, with a proper profile, it can help with the sensor noise that is constant across the image, and by profiling with the color noise that varies with color (blues are usually a mess, etc), and then there is the noise that varies with intensity. Trying out NI, without the benefit of being able to use it in a masked layer, was not a pleasant experience. In trying to handle one kind of noise in one area of the image, another area would be messed up. In the end I removed it from my system and learned (as Daniel suggests) the basics (and just the basics so far) of noise removal with PS -- it is so much easier to get the results I when I don't have to balance getting the results in one area with getting trouble in another.

I don't know how I would like NI if I paid for the priviledge of using it in layers, but after seeing how easy it is to do this in PS I doubt I will bother to find out.

There is one thing that makes me look at NI and wonder if it would be worth installing it again; the profiling of my camera at various settings. Take an image an create a profile of the noise at that ISO setting and such and NI removes it. The same can be done in PS by taking a black image (lens cap on) to get an image of just the noise and then subtract it from the 'real' image. Unless I have misunderstood something, these two activities are basically the same in function, but doing it in PS is illegal under basic and advanced DPC challenge rules (multiple exposures) while using NI is legal even under basic rules.

David

/edit: formatting

Message edited by author 2004-09-02 02:24:12.
 07/12/2005 12:30:03 PM · #43
After looking at and voting on the "family" challenge...I thought maybe it's time to revisit this thread, I do often...very insightful...

good stuff...good stuff

: }
 07/12/2005 12:45:58 PM · #44
can you post process using neat image with any type of camera or is it like RAW?
 07/12/2005 12:51:51 PM · #45
Originally posted by queanbeez:
can you post process using neat image with any type of camera or is it like RAW?


It works as a plug-in tool for editing software or as a stand alone program. The source of the image doesn't matter as long as it can be imported into NI. You can download a demo version to check it out at neatimage.com
 07/12/2005 02:02:37 PM · #46
ok thanks!

Originally posted by RonBeam:
Originally posted by queanbeez:
can you post process using neat image with any type of camera or is it like RAW?


It works as a plug-in tool for editing software or as a stand alone program. The source of the image doesn't matter as long as it can be imported into NI. You can download a demo version to check it out at neatimage.com

07/12/2005 02:20:35 PM · #47
Originally posted by doctornick:
Well said. Good thing NI is not available for Mac yet. Once it's available I'll probably go crazy for a while then ease off to a natural median...


You can try Grain Surgery it works just as good!
 07/12/2005 02:27:49 PM · #48
Aww.. Spaz.. you don't have to say *no* to NeatImage.. everything in moderation as they say.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 12:58:55 PM

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: 08/01/2025 12:58:55 PM EDT.