| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2004 06:13:42 PM · #1 |
I don't have the software although do have pixelNhance equivalent but never use it. I see loads of shots that either rely on it for gimmicks or overdo the clean up, yielding a surreal, super-smooth shot.
I think it's good practice to see how clean you can make your shot without it, ie. experimenting with settings or adjusting manually using editing software. This can really hone your skills in both photography and photo editing.
I'll probably still get it if it becomes available for Mac though. ;) |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:21:19 PM · #2 |
Sorry, but all non-DSLR pictures taken need some kind of noise reduction. It's very possible to overdo it, but isn't it more of a challenge to use it subtly? The basic editing restrictions are what make it SO difficult to use NeatImage subtly, as there are two ways of using that are not allowed:
1: Put the NeatImaged photo on a new layer, and play with the opacity levels.
2: Only run NeatImage on the noisiest colour channels. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:26:09 PM · #3 |
| This is why I started the missing the grain tread. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:39:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I don't have the software although do have pixelNhance equivalent but never use it. I see loads of shots that either rely on it for gimmicks or overdo the clean up, yielding a surreal, super-smooth shot.
I think it's good practice to see how clean you can make your shot without it, ie. experimenting with settings or adjusting manually using editing software. This can really hone your skills in both photography and photo editing.
I'll probably still get it if it becomes available for Mac though. ;) |
Theres IsoX Pro plug-in for the Mac that does the trick. No freebie though, costs you an arm ... available at fredmiranda.com. I have nothing to do with this site. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:46:37 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 07:18:55 PM · #6 |
To my eye, most of these could benefit with some noise reduction. Obviously, this is needed less the more high-key the image and it's all relative. But if you want your shots to look like they've been taken with a good quality camera, you need to reduce noise. Some people are just less fussy than others about this.
I should also add that none of your photos has had a lot of USM applied, which will also amplify the noise in your shots. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 07:43:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I should also add that none of your photos has had a lot of USM applied, which will also amplify the noise in your shots. |
That would suggest to me that oversharpening shouldn't be done, rather than always doing noise reduction.
Feel free to demonstrate the improved versions with neat image applied if you'd like though - I really don't see a need for it for the majority of shots I take with my Pentax optio, when I expose correctly. When I screw it up and have to do a lot of adjustments to get the exposure correct then the noise is a big issue certainly.
Message edited by author 2004-06-14 19:44:57.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:10:57 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Sorry, but all non-DSLR pictures taken need some kind of noise reduction. It's very possible to overdo it, but isn't it more of a challenge to use it subtly? The basic editing restrictions are what make it SO difficult to use NeatImage subtly, as there are two ways of using that are not allowed:
1: Put the NeatImaged photo on a new layer, and play with the opacity levels.
2: Only run NeatImage on the noisiest colour channels. |
Most my shots in my profile where taken with my sony and I didn't use neatimage. I found that if I had low (very low) lighting then I had a problem with it.
I did use neatimage on my self portrait shot. I learned from that shot. I could just kick myself for submitting such a bad shot, but I guess we have to learn sometime.
I did use neatimage with this image because the mice were somewhat out of focus. It help a little. You just have to be careful not to over do it.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:12:31 PM · #9 |
My thoughts run roughly parallel with Gordon's. For properly exposed shots with most small-sensor cams, the noise levels are quite acceptable, especially if downsampled. Oversharpening can definitely exacerbate noise, as can "bringing up" shadow detail, where S/N is lowest.
IMO, an image does not need to be noise-free, and in fact a low level of noise can sometimes enhance an image.
The only place that I find noise to be problematic in normal shooting with my Nikon 995 is in blue skies and other very uniform areas. In this case, a little very gentle & selective NeatImage is sometimes, though not always called for.
In low light, it's another matter though...
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:41:06 PM · #10 |
I just always set my cam on ISO 50, anything higher than that, and i get serious noise issues. If I take a shot on 400 the noise I get is incredible.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 10:37:49 PM · #11 |
but look how oh so buttery smooth :)
mmmm....neeaaatttimaaageee...
 vs. 
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 10:43:25 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
....adjusting manually using editing software.... |
What's the difference between that and using Neat Image, Noise Ninja or Noiseware?
I think grainy/noisy images vs smooth ones; and soft vs sharpened/oversharpened ones are as much a matter of taste as they are a corollary of camera type. Each camera, including DSLRs, has it's own in-camera processing profile which makes it impossible to generalize.
Why not just say "I don't particularly care for smoothed images" instead of steering people away from a software program that may improve their images?
Message edited by author 2004-06-14 22:48:28. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 10:48:33 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by the-O-ster:
but look how oh so buttery smooth :)
mmmm....neeaaatttimaaageee...
vs. |
Urm, all I can see there is that you managed to remove detail from the bed of the loch... There is marginally less noise in the sky, which is essentially invsible in an actual print anyway, but you've thrown away a whole lot of actual image detail in the process.
Message edited by author 2004-06-14 22:49:42.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 10:52:56 PM · #14 |
Sometimes I've used NeatImage, sometimes not.
Fairly heavily NeatImaged (though I don't think overly so):
Nary a NeatImage touched this shot:
Both relatively noise-free.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 12:00:56 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by the-O-ster:
but look how oh so buttery smooth :)
mmmm....neeaaatttimaaageee...
vs. |
Urm, all I can see there is that you managed to remove detail from the bed of the loch... There is marginally less noise in the sky, which is essentially invsible in an actual print anyway, but you've thrown away a whole lot of actual image detail in the process. |
I agree, Gordon. I like the one without. The one with neatimage lacks detail.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 12:46:07 AM · #16 |
The first shot with Neatimage, the sky is MUCH better. No doubt. In the original, even at 640x480 I can see the grain in the sky. Imagine how it would look at 8x10 or whatever.
I don't like to use Neatimage on everything as standard editing. I'd much rather not use it if possible because it seems to remove a lot of data from the original image, but sometimes you have to. I wish the software had something where you could select only a certain parts of the image to apply the processing on. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 01:23:10 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
The first shot with Neatimage, the sky is MUCH better. No doubt. In the original, even at 640x480 I can see the grain in the sky. Imagine how it would look at 8x10 or whatever.
I don't like to use Neatimage on everything as standard editing. I'd much rather not use it if possible because it seems to remove a lot of data from the original image, but sometimes you have to. I wish the software had something where you could select only a certain parts of the image to apply the processing on. |
The Pro version has a PS plugin that can be applied to any selectable area as any other filter can be, unless I have my information horribly wrong.
David
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 01:51:58 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by the-O-ster:
but look how oh so buttery smooth :)
mmmm....neeaaatttimaaageee...
vs. |
I agree with those who like the none filtered version better. As for noise in an 8 x 10 no one would try and print an 8 x 10 from a 640 x 480 image. The noise will tend to be fine enough that it will not be noticeable when printed out at 8 x 10 when using the non-resized image.
I have had very limited success with Neat Image and mostly when I only use it for something like the sky. Trying to apply it to the whole images normally degrades some part of the image more then I like.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 02:56:31 AM · #19 |
Not trying to change the thread to much, but so you think the pro version (with ps plugins) is worth the 79 bucks? When you're on my budget, 79 bucks is more media or steppin towards a lens...
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 05:00:37 AM · #20 |
It's almost impossible to run NeatImage properly on anything but a full sized image. NeatImage needs a decently sized area of photo from which to judge what is noise and what is detail.
And as I said before, the basic editing rules prohibit us from using NeatImage as it should be used, which is in layers so that we can decide which areas of a photo need noise reduction, and which don't.
And you really can't tell me that in the photo with sky we've been looking at, there would be no noise in an 8*10 print? It has nothing to do with the fact that you would make an 8*10 from the small image presented here, but you can see noise in the 640 x 480 image, therefore a larger picture will show more noise. A print from 35mm at 50 ISO won't have anywhere near that level of noise, and isn't that what we should be comparing to?
Also, a Sony 717 will have less noise as it has a larger sensor (so I've been told). |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 07:45:20 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Not trying to change the thread to much, but so you think the pro version (with ps plugins) is worth the 79 bucks? When you're on my budget, 79 bucks is more media or steppin towards a lens... |
I wouldn't purchase it unless you are consistently placing top XX shots or do a lot of work at the extremes of your camera's range. You could take many of the winning shots each challenge and add some noise to them without affecting their placing much if at all. Barring seriously flawed images, the biggest thing is the composition overall. Honestly, how many people zoom in on images during voting to check pixel noise?
The other case where I could see NI being worthwhile is if you are trying to make absolutely top-notch prints in sizes that are pushing your resolution... I have some beautiful prints on my wall which are oversampled and show some pixels up close, but it doesn't in any way affect my enjoyment of them as the "art" in them is the same. But in this case, if you want to make huge prints, your tool should be an appropriate camera to achieve high quality.
Focus on what's important - good glass and essentials like enough memory to shoot raw. Shooting raw, or even tiff rather than jpeg, will often take care of some of that noise you want NI for. I think you could take all those image cleanup tools away from the top photographers on this site and they would still win because they have a good eye and a mastery of their camera.
Message edited by author 2004-06-15 07:46:45. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 07:51:23 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by the-O-ster:
but look how oh so buttery smooth :)
mmmm....neeaaatttimaaageee...
vs. |
I agree with those who like the none filtered version better. As for noise in an 8 x 10 no one would try and print an 8 x 10 from a 640 x 480 image. The noise will tend to be fine enough that it will not be noticeable when printed out at 8 x 10 when using the non-resized image.
I have had very limited success with Neat Image and mostly when I only use it for something like the sky. Trying to apply it to the whole images normally degrades some part of the image more then I like. |
If you look at the red channel of this original photo, you will see how much room for improvement there is in terms of noise levels.
I also think this image could be much sharper, using USM, while still being very subtle.
cghubbell just said 'I think you could take all those image cleanup tools away from the top photographers on this site and they would still win because they have a good eye and a mastery of their camera.', and I would absolutely agree with this.
However, while we have these tools, let's make our photos even better... even if sometimes the differences are subtle.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 07:55:09 AM · #23 |
Quickshutter - that's an Olympus trademark - high noise. My Rebel takes less noisy pictures at iso 1600 than the Oly 720 takes on iso 200!!! WTF.
To me, that makes no sense whatsoever. But whatever. If you have such a cam, learn NI. It's not worth buying ANY software for DPChallenges. Sorry. But it depends what you want to put into your 'hobby.' If you sell prints, maybe that NI will pay for itself. Etc.
M
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 09:42:34 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
It's almost impossible to run NeatImage properly on anything but a full sized image. NeatImage needs a decently sized area of photo from which to judge what is noise and what is detail. |
For what its worth, this is the least effective way to use neatimage. Better is to characterise the noise profile of your camera at particular ISOs and JPEG or RAW settings and just apply it that way. Then you don't need to fuss around trying to sample flat areas of an image. This is all well explained in the documentation.
Also, for applying it to select areas, it is a simple matter to make a duplicate layer, apply neat image to that layer then mask it back in to the image. You can even paint the reduction back in to selected areas if you like.
I actually use an inverted 'edge sharpen' mask to apply neat image to high ISO files - it removes noise in the textureless areas and preserves edges much more effectively than using it on the whole image.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 10:02:59 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
It's almost impossible to run NeatImage properly on anything but a full sized image. NeatImage needs a decently sized area of photo from which to judge what is noise and what is detail. |
For what its worth, this is the least effective way to use neatimage. Better is to characterise the noise profile of your camera at particular ISOs and JPEG or RAW settings and just apply it that way. Then you don't need to fuss around trying to sample flat areas of an image. This is all well explained in the documentation. |
I disagree. It may be quicker, but noise reduction will always by definition be carried out better by defining flat areas. Unless you have a photo that has had NO levels or curves adjustments, you will need to define a flat area after these adjustments.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Also, for applying it to select areas, it is a simple matter to make a duplicate layer, apply neat image to that layer then mask it back in to the image. You can even paint the reduction back in to selected areas if you like. |
Isn't that what I said?
Originally posted by Gordon:
I actually use an inverted 'edge sharpen' mask to apply neat image to high ISO files - it removes noise in the textureless areas and preserves edges much more effectively than using it on the whole image. |
Yep, this can work well. |
|
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: 08/02/2025 12:20:20 PM EDT.
