|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/29/2003 08:40:12 PM · #1 |
In your work flow where do you put Neat Image? Also, which version do you use? Is it worth registering and why?
|
|
|
|
12/29/2003 09:04:28 PM · #2 |
Let me address the last question first... YES. It is worth registering because with the unregistered version you can only save at a highly compressed setting, which will introduce horrible JPEG artifacts. You can skate around this with low-res images (those that can be displayed whole in the results window at 100%) by doing a screen capture, but this is really circumventing the spirit of the demo license, so ethically, there's a problem there. We should support those who write good software and make it available at reasonable cost.
Now for the first question: I run NeatImage after all editing but prior to resizing. I tend to run NeatImage very conservatively, as I do not like the too-smooth "plastic" look that results from over-application of NeatImage.
I use the Photoshop plug-in version, this has a nice advantage that if I want to fade the effect or apply NeatImage only on a selection I can do so, something which the stand-alone product does not support. I often do run NeatImage only on the shadow portions of a shot, since those are the noisiest areas.
I also often do a test resizing of the image to see if the noise level will show up at all before running NeatImage. Downsampling significantly, e.g. from 3072x2048 to 640x433, removes ALOT of noise via averaging.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 06:39:35 AM · #3 |
I do it very first.
otherwise after all my sensitive shapening, colouring, and so on is done, I shove it into neatimage and have it wreck it, and need tweaking once again.
no need handling it 3 times, when 2 times is possible, and nicer for working with :)
although it only removes noise, it still blurrs a bit, and does unsaturate slightly.
atleast thats what I've found out.
have a look at the histogram on a before/after ;) |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:34:54 AM · #4 |
As all three of you are members, I was wondering if you had thought of the following technique?
With the current rule set, assuming that it stays the same in future, Neatimage one layer and overlay it over the original image. Then by using an overlay layer as the Neatimage one, you can vary how much you Neatimage the layer and by using a mask you can also vary where you Neatimage the original picture.
Through using this technique with two separately Neatimage pictures, and two separate image masks you can effectively Neatimage the edges of your picture and the solid colour spaces completely differently. With this in mind, you can retain edge detail but also get an almost perfectly clear image.
Having said all that, I don't find my cameras noise to be particularly annoying and therefore I do not bother using Neatimage. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:51:31 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
As all three of you are members, I was wondering if you had thought of the following technique?
With the current rule set, assuming that it stays the same in future, Neatimage one layer and overlay it over the original image. Then by using an overlay layer as the Neatimage one, you can vary how much you Neatimage the layer and by using a mask you can also vary where you Neatimage the original picture.
Through using this technique with two separately Neatimage pictures, and two separate image masks you can effectively Neatimage the edges of your picture and the solid colour spaces completely differently. With this in mind, you can retain edge detail but also get an almost perfectly clear image.
Having said all that, I don't find my cameras noise to be particularly annoying and therefore I do not bother using Neatimage. |
This sounds like an interesting technique. I unfortunately don't have the 75 bucks to upgrade to Pro+ version (actually I do, but it's in the camera kitty). I wish that they would have done a time limited version of the trial software rather than a crippled version so I could see if I liked it enough...
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 09:27:31 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
As all three of you are members, I was wondering if you had thought of the following technique?
With the current rule set, assuming that it stays the same in future, Neatimage one layer and overlay it over the original image. Then by using an overlay layer as the Neatimage one, you can vary how much you Neatimage the layer and by using a mask you can also vary where you Neatimage the original picture.
Through using this technique with two separately Neatimage pictures, and two separate image masks you can effectively Neatimage the edges of your picture and the solid colour spaces completely differently. With this in mind, you can retain edge detail but also get an almost perfectly clear image.
Having said all that, I don't find my cameras noise to be particularly annoying and therefore I do not bother using Neatimage. |
Great points. With the old rule set, we were restricted to applying globally and fading the effect if necessary. For non-DPC work or on the new rules, there are multiple options. My usual MO is to use a quick mask, not as elegant as your solution, but "cheap & dirty." Only downfall of this is having to back up & redo if not satisfied, rather than just play with the masks. Upside is it is very fast.
I too avoid NeatImage (or any noise reduction!) if possible, and the 10D has such low noise that I only find I need NeatImage on shots that I've had to use ISO 800, an dcertainly not all the time then.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 11:14:03 AM · #7 |
I, too, use Neat Image first if needed, for the same reasons as cvt.
The technique suggested by sn4psh07 is a great idea. I hadn't thought of it. And it is especially useful since I have only the Home version, not the Pro+ that includes the plug-in.
Another reason to purchase Neat Image is that the demo version is for non-commercial use only. (Not that any of my images have commercial value. But who knows? I might get lucky!) |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 01:32:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
With the current rule set, assuming that it stays the same in future |
It's unclear if you are referring to the current December (editing allowed) rules, or the current, permanent (no edit) rules.
I only have the demo NI and haven't mastered it yet. Your technique sounds well thought-out, and I expect it would be very effective. However, IMHO, it is the kind of thing the original rules were meant to discourage. Isn't what you call "effectively Neatimage the edges of your picture and the solid colour spaces completely differently" the same as using a clone tool to remove specks but on another magnitude? Treating parts of the image differently, however it is done, seems to me to be against the spirit of the permanent (no edit) rules.
In deciding whether to keep the old rules or adopt the new ones we need to keep in mind that our Site Council members will be asked to enforce them. What works best for them in determining compliance as precisely as possible is an important factor which needs to be considered, perhaps moreso than in the past considering the recent number of DQs. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 01:59:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
With the current rule set, assuming that it stays the same in future |
It's unclear if you are referring to the current December (editing allowed) rules, or the current, permanent (no edit) rules.
I only have the demo NI and haven't mastered it yet. Your technique sounds well thought-out, and I expect it would be very effective. However, IMHO, it is the kind of thing the original rules were meant to discourage. Isn't what you call "effectively Neatimage the edges of your picture and the solid colour spaces completely differently" the same as using a clone tool to remove specks but on another magnitude? Treating parts of the image differently, however it is done, seems to me to be against the spirit of the permanent (no edit) rules.
In deciding whether to keep the old rules or adopt the new ones we need to keep in mind that our Site Council members will be asked to enforce them. What works best for them in determining compliance as precisely as possible is an important factor which needs to be considered, perhaps moreso than in the past considering the recent number of DQs. |
By "current", I assume sn4psh07 means the December Rule set. His methodology would be clearly legal in during this December, but of course illegal otherwise. Notwithstanding questions of legality, it is still an excellent technique for obtaining noise reduction only in the areas where it is most needed.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 02:21:33 PM · #10 |
I now use Noise Ninja, //www.picturecode.com/nn_features.htm because I like it better then Neat Image. There is a lot of controls and you can undo or fine tune certain areas for complete control of where it is applied and to what degree. I always use it first that way I am never accentuating the noise with my editing.
T |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 03:19:53 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
With the current rule set, assuming that it stays the same in future |
It's unclear if you are referring to the current December (editing allowed) rules, or the current, permanent (no edit) rules.
I only have the demo NI and haven't mastered it yet. Your technique sounds well thought-out, and I expect it would be very effective. However, IMHO, it is the kind of thing the original rules were meant to discourage. |
Yes I meant December rules -- sorry for my lack of clarity :)
And you are correct later in your post too which is why I am against the Decemebr rules, I think they are too powerful :(
Here is the full technique: -- NI technique |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 07:19:18 PM  |
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: 08/29/2025 07:19:18 PM EDT.
|
