| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2004 06:57:52 PM · #1 |
| Whean I'm looking at some pictures I notice that some people use neat image or some noice reduction programs to much. I thougt I had discover a gold mine when tryd it first, but now I hate it. IMO it take all personality from the pic.... |
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:11:55 PM · #2 |
There's always a trade-off when you use a program like Neatimage; less noise at the cost of detail. You have to decide if it's worth it on a picture-by-picture basis. I agree that many people needlessly include it as part of a standard "workflow."
Message edited by author 2004-02-22 19:12:20. |
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:12:26 PM · #3 |
I use it from time to time. The key here is not to overdo it. I'll use it to clean an image a bit, or use it to give the image a bit of a soft focus look. You're right though, I've seen some picturew that have overdone it.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:22:15 PM · #4 |
Yup, when I first learned about it, I thought I had to use it all the time. Now I only use it if needed, and I am very careful about how I apply it. You can almost never accept the defaults.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:28:54 PM · #5 |
I think neat image is a great tool, I agree that it shouldnt be used as standard as many shots simply dont need it. By their very nature noise reduction programs will destory some detail in the shot, but if used well (like jacko said) this can give a nice smooth soft focus effect. I ran my simplicity shot through neat image and feel it adds a lot ot the photo.
 |
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:51:17 PM · #6 |
| I think that like with any other digital tool you use, you have to use it wisely and when it enhances the photograph to your taste as a photographer. |
|
|
|
02/22/2004 08:26:28 PM · #7 |
The auto-fine tune function in Neatimage is IMO what is destroying pictures from time to time. It use information from all the picture to create a custom noise reduction. But often small details can be interpreted by the software as noise. When this happen, I don't use this feature and i'm only taking a sample of the part of the picture i want the noise to be released to create the custom noise reduction and it work well. Also Neatimage is a very good noise reducer but it wont do any miracle. If there is a lot of noise in the original, there will be a lot of noise reductionwich mean you loose a lot of details and get artefacts around your subject. Still the best solution is a good picture from the start.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2004 04:22:19 AM · #8 |
I stopped using NeatImage for most of my shots... I liked the "grainy film" feel after I applied some filtering to remove colour noise to make the grain look more natural.
My filtering technique: gaussian blur (from 3-7pix depending on noise), then fade to colour (in Photoshop).
:)atwl
|
|
|
|
02/23/2004 08:10:53 AM · #9 |
It depends on what you want. There are times when I use neat image and then put back noise/grains to the exact level I want like this image //tariquesani.net/displayimage.php?pos=-606 (caution nudity)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2004 08:38:52 AM · #10 |
I finally bought neat image a couple months ago after having had the trial version for about a year. Funny thing is, I haven't used it once since then because I really dislike how it makes pictures look if it is applied too strong. For sure, this is one of my pet peeves. Followed very closely by the white outlines caused from oversharpening.
The answer to both these problems would be to take a clear sharp image to begin with. |
|
|
|
02/23/2004 09:03:27 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by pcody:
I finally bought neat image a couple months ago after having had the trial version for about a year. Funny thing is, I haven't used it once since then because I really dislike how it makes pictures look if it is applied too strong. For sure, this is one of my pet peeves. Followed very closely by the white outlines caused from oversharpening.
The answer to both these problems would be to take a clear sharp image to begin with. |
I use NI occasionally to reduce the noise in high ISO photos. But you're right; if used too heavily, it makes the image look artificial. I also agree that the key is to use the camera to the fullest extent of its capabilities. Tools are great for 'tweeking', but if you don't have a good subject to start with, well......... |
|
|
|
02/23/2004 09:43:12 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
I use it from time to time. The key here is not to overdo it. I'll use it to clean an image a bit, or use it to give the image a bit of a soft focus look. You're right though, I've seen some picturew that have overdone it. |
You said that creates soft-focus effect with it. Can you show me how?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2004 01:24:50 PM · #13 |
My first use of Neat Image was for my entry in the Infinite challenge, Cold Rolled
I really liked the way it emphasized the contrast between the hard steel and soft background in a photo that had been very noisy and maybe oversharpened. But one commenter said I had overused NI so I stayed away from it for a long time. When I started using it again I followed the instructions on the NI site to make a custom profile for my camera (very easy) and now I get a lot better results when I use NI, which is not too often. |
|
|
|
02/23/2004 01:28:22 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
My first use of Neat Image was for my entry in the Infinite challenge, Cold Rolled
I really liked the way it emphasized the contrast between the hard steel and soft background in a photo that had been very noisy and maybe oversharpened. But one commenter said I had overused NI so I stayed away from it for a long time. When I started using it again I followed the instructions on the NI site to make a custom profile for my camera (very easy) and now I get a lot better results when I use NI, which is not too often. |
Is all that steel abandoned? You have quite a bit more than a fortune on your hands, even if it's started to rust. And good timing cause steel prices are soaring.....might want to load your pick-up.
Side note: NI..me no likey. But some images are naturally soft like they've been NI'd. |
|
|
|
02/23/2004 03:46:21 PM · #15 |
| Nah, those rolls weren't even rusted yet. Would never have gotten away with it. But probably could have helped myself to a couple of these guys |
|
|
|
02/23/2004 03:54:09 PM · #16 |
Yep, like anything, it depends on how you use the program. I personally use Noise Ninja and I am very happy with it. I took my time and set up the proper noise profiles for each ISO setting on my camera. They provide a method for accurately doing this. When it is used right I have no problem reducing noise while still maintaining detail. I think the real key is using the right noise profiles for the type of camera you are using. This provides very consistent results. I use it now on nearly all of my photos that I want to show but I am very carefully not to be too aggressive with it to keep the photos looking natural.
T
|
|
|
|
02/23/2004 04:10:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Nah, those rolls weren't even rusted yet. Would never have gotten away with it. But probably could have helped myself to a couple of these guys |
considering each weighs about 10,000lbs and are worth about $30-$50,000CND each, it might be worth strapping on your night vision goggles,donning war paint and doing some Mission Impossible type work. It'd atleast pay for a new camera. lol
Disclaimer: attempted by a professional, do not try at home. |
|
|
|
02/23/2004 07:00:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Nah, those rolls weren't even rusted yet. Would never have gotten away with it. But probably could have helped myself to a couple of these guys |
considering each weighs about 10,000lbs and are worth about $30-$50,000CND each, it might be worth strapping on your night vision goggles,donning war paint and doing some Mission Impossible type work. It'd atleast pay for a new camera. lol
Disclaimer: attempted by a professional, do not try at home. |
For instructions on removing (stealing) a rail car from the center of a moving train see one of the early episodes of "Banacek." I don't particularly care for George Peppard, but they had some decent mystery writing on that show. |
|
