Neat Image !?? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/03/2005 10:38:56 AM · #1

this is a testcase on the Neat Image software wich i downloaded (free version) lately
i think it can work very well if i knew how to handle it
the parameters where set standard for this
i think this treat i run on this image is much too fierce for this pic as there are halos everywhere and strange effects in the skypart (apropos skypart...i work on this Airport soo that gives me opportunity now and than to take 5 minutes off and see them coming in at daybreak when the light is soo wonderful and colours the sky soo nicely)
ofcourse i wil have to experiment and study the neat image theories but if someone has a nice tip on speeding up skills on this matter that would be wonderful!!

coolhar

02/03/2005 11:19:05 AM · #2

One thing you'll want to experiment with is the sharpening that NI can do. Removing the noise often leaves the image looking dull so NI has a sharpening feature built into it. On my 4.0 demo version it's the on the Noise Filter Settings page. Another thing you can do to make NI work better is to use noise profiles for your camera instead of sampling on each image. You can download camera specific profiles from the NI site, or use their target to make your own. It's a lot easier than it sounds.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/03/2005 11:42:37 AM · #3

It's hard to tell, but those halos look more like compression artifacts than anything to do with smoothing/sharpening to me.

02/03/2005 11:44:02 AM · #4

Originally posted by coolhar:

You can download camera specific profiles from the NI site, or use their target to make your own. It's a lot easier than it sounds.

is that at 'profileset'?

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/03/2005 11:46:46 AM · #5

Originally posted by ganders:

It's hard to tell, but those halos look more like compression artifacts than anything to do with smoothing/sharpening to me.

i compressed excactly according a tutorial about how to save for dp
soo this should be ok
i uploaded the same picture at a big size but the artifacts stay the same

coolhar

02/03/2005 11:57:31 AM · #6

Originally posted by messerschmitt:

Originally posted by coolhar:
You can download camera specific profiles from the NI site, or use their target to make your own. It's a lot easier than it sounds.

is that at 'profileset'?

Yes.

I see one for Fuji F700 but not for your 550. However you can use their calibration target to make your own profile set, usually one for each ISO setting your camera has. It's not difficult, just follow the instructions on the NI site.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 12:03:24.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/03/2005 12:04:50 PM · #7

Originally posted by messerschmitt:

Originally posted by ganders:
It's hard to tell, but those halos look more like compression artifacts than anything to do with smoothing/sharpening to me.

i compressed excactly according a tutorial about how to save for dp
soo this should be ok
i uploaded the same picture at a big size but the artifacts stay the same

Are the artifacts visible in NeatImage itself, before saving the file?

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/03/2005 12:07:18 PM · #8

Seldom do images require overall sharpening/smoothing.

If you want my advice, for best results:

> dupe the normal, untreated layer twice
> sharpen the top one
> NeatImage the other
> add a layer mask to the sharpened one - 'hide all'
> 'paint in' the mask the areas that need sharpening with a reduced opacity brush
> do the same with the smoothed layer if it looks too 'clean'

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/03/2005 12:46:06 PM · #9

Originally posted by coolhar:

NI does not work better if you use noise profiles. The manual does actually say that NI works better if you sample each image. I've found this to be true through experience. Only use a profile if there's no flat area large enough to sample.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/03/2005 01:02:58 PM · #10

I think you are right Bobster. That would make sense. Perhaps I was thinking "easier" instead of "better". Most of the time you can find a flat area large enough, so the times when the profile would be better instead of just easier are the minority. I've never read the manual. I just use the free demo. The compression isn't that damaging if you are aiming for an internet-sized final outcome.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/03/2005 01:03:09 PM · #11

[quote=Imagineer] Seldom do images require overall sharpening/smoothing.

If you want my advice, for best results:

yes ur advise is welcome
but i forgot to mention i didn t do any layers sofar as im still very new to all this ps and software stuff but i ll keep ur advise in mind

the reason my images do need some cleaning might be because my cam start at iso200 and i often have extended shutterttimes in lowlight situations like this daybreak shot (never carrie tripods too but use selftimer and create a tripod from whatever is around) and it causes alot of hazy grainy stuff specially when i use the curves tool

everybody thx for ur help sofar

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/03/2005 01:19:01 PM · #12

Originally posted by messerschmitt:

but i forgot to mention i didn t do any layers sofar as im still very new to all this ps and software stuff but i ll keep ur advise in mind

If you're new to Photoshop then I highly recommend that you experiment with layers. It reduces frustration and allows for much more editing flexibility. Rather than being more complex they allow you to see at a glance the structure of your image. For instance, if you name each layer "Sharp", "NeatImage", etc. then just by looking and tweaking opacity of layers, changing blending modes you can powerfully control the results.

Otherwise you will be floundering using History or Undo rather than being able to track and change the alterations. Do a simple tutorial within Photoshop and the way will become beautifully clear!
: )

02/03/2005 01:38:52 PM · #13

Otherwise you will be floundering using History or Undo rather than being able to track and change the alterations. Do a simple tutorial within Photoshop and the way will become beautifully clear!
: ) [/quote]

the message is clear :)
its just i feel like i just learned how to swim and i have to force me to take a dive in the deep(that is how it looks from here cause i have never been there)t o swim without touching ground and thats whats swimming about i guess
maybe just another few days to take a deep breath and i go
i probably will be thankful u kinda give me a little push
thx in advance for that

maybe any advisory what tutorial to begin with?

Splash!!

02/03/2005 02:40:46 PM · #14

Wil,

Just open an image in photoshop and convert it from jpg to psd (photoshop native format) by "saving as."

On this new file, go to layers menu and select "new layer from background" and name this "background copy".

Using "background copy" as the active layer (click it in the layers palette), go to Layers menu and select "new adjustment layer" and choose "levels"; name the resultant adjustment layer "levels 1" (does this by default) and play with the histogram until the levels look good to you. Click "ok" and see what you now have in your layers dialogue box: click the eyeball beside this new adjustment layer to hide it, and you will see the original image. Click the eyeball again to make the levels layer once more visible, and use the "layer opacity" slider in the same dialogue box to fade the effect of the layer.

See what I mean? It's easy, not hard. It makes work simpler. If you do somethign you don't like, or later do something that causes you to want to eliminate the levels layer, you can just drag it to the trashcan at the bottom of the pallette and it is gone. You may end up with 10-12 layers, many of them no longer visible or needed.

Toss the ones you don't need, save the image, then go to "layers/flatten layers" to combine them all into one. Now resize this new image for DPC as usual, save as a jpg, and you're done. When you close the original, be sure to choose "no" when it asks if youw ant to save, because this one has been flattened and you don't want to overwrite the original psd file with all the layer data in it.

This will do for starters.

Robt.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/03/2005 02:42:26 PM · #15

Question for Neat Image users;

I just bit the bullet and bought the program. I'm curious where it fits best into the workflow on an image that is too noisy out of the camera; do you NI first, then go from there? Or do you adjust image as usual then NI as a last step? Or what? What do most people do?

Robt.

peecee

Canon EOS-5D

02/03/2005 02:45:03 PM · #16

I have found that you can fall into the trap of overusage,that aside
I personally leave it til the next to last step before sharpening.

drz01

Pentax K50

Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR

02/03/2005 02:53:36 PM · #17

I dislike neatimage, I may be one of a few that does but all images that have pass through NI seams artificial especially ones with faces in them. It may not be the filter itself but the aggressive use of it. There is no perfect-skinned person noiseless background and the like. I like a bit of noise in my images it looks more natural. I know print media needs to do this but if you look at NG some of their best shots have all the imperfections that are there in nature such as dust, sand and wrinkled faces. This is my 2 cents worth.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/03/2005 03:02:14 PM · #18

I've looekd into it very carefully, actually: I quite agree that many times the overprocessed look of extreme NI is ridiculous. But when used at the appropriate levels it does an astonishingly good job of cleaning up noise and sharpening images. Really, really astonishing. When I get the right comparo set up, I'll show what I've foudn out. I suspect a LOT of the really good pictures in this site are made with NI as an integral step of the processing and that it's so "transparent" no viewer of the images can tell. It's just that the ones we NOTICE" are the extreme cases.

Robt.

peecee

Canon EOS-5D

02/03/2005 03:10:20 PM · #19

Good comments Robert I look forward to your more detailed observations.
One point I might add, going from my 602z to the 10D has made me think more about the usage of NI, the luxury of low noise pictures is not everyones ability, but as you say it is often overused to the point of unnatural.

Kylie

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

02/03/2005 03:11:02 PM · #20

I agree with most of what drz01 stated. I am getting an apathetic attitude after seeing the standard here look like ad copy so often. The best people absoulutely do use NI and all their other editing "invisibly", but the end result is a huge percentage of work here looking more like ad copy than photogprahy to me. Before anyone blasts me, let me say that 1) I accept DPC for what it is, 2) I recognize the HUGE range of tastes and opinions, and 3) There is room for it ALL in my opinion, I just personally wish there was a bit wider range of "ribbon winning" tastes on DPC.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/03/2005 03:17:13 PM · #21

Since I got a DSLR, I've really eased up on using NeatImage. Not only because I can use high ISOs with little noise, but even noisy images at ISO3200 have a lovely quality of noise, like film grain. Not so with my FZ10!

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/03/2005 03:19:39 PM · #22

Originally posted by bear_music:

I just bit the bullet and bought the program. I'm curious where it fits best into the workflow on an image that is too noisy out of the camera; do you NI first, then go from there? Or do you adjust image as usual then NI as a last step? Or what? What do most people do?

Just to be different to peecee... I tend to run the images through NI first before moving on to Photoshop (well, unless I've been shooting in raw in which case I have to go to PS, save them out as tifs, go to NI, then back into PS for the rest!)

I do agree that overuser of NI can leave images looking very artifical - like most image manipulation tools, the trick is to learn to apply it firmly enough to do the job and lightly enough for it not to show. It's something that only gets better with practice!

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/03/2005 03:22:42 PM · #23

You got it, Bobster; there's "nice" noise and there's crappy noise, and I got this program so I could deal with the latter. I don't have the luxury of a DSLR, and probably never will, 'cuz a single, decent lens costs more than I live on in a month. It's just one more tool.

Likewise I have Richard Rosenmann's lens-correction tool, which does a wonderful job of taking the barrel distortion out of my wide-angle shots with the 5700.

Robt.

Sammie

Olympus OM-D E-M5

02/03/2005 03:43:10 PM · #24

Helicon noise filter works very well, too. I prefer it to Neat Image. It removes noise without detail and doesn't give that over processed look that Neat Image does, especially to skin. Helicon will do lots of other things, too - I just use the noise removal. Usually I remove 25 to 50% of noise with my FZ20 and with my Rebel I sometimes don't use noise removal and sometimes 10 to 15%.

Removing noise is one of the last steps I do in editing - I do it just before I resize. Then I use unsharp mask before saving for the web.