| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2005 11:26:00 AM · #1 |
And stop the NEAT-IMAGE Insanity!
GACK! If there is one thing that really irks me about viewing images at this site it's the overabundance of plastic looking, oversmoothed, excessively neat-imaged photos!
I mean really, you can spot them from across the room and they are downright GROSS!
Cmon folks, feel the noise, at least its REAL. If you must you neatimage then buy the full version and use it SPARINGLY.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:32:04 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:34:05 AM · #3 |
| For the uninitiated, what is neat image and what does it do that annoys you so much? |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:37:10 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
... feel the noise, at least its REAL. If you must you neatimage then buy the full version and use it SPARINGLY. |
Sparingly is good.
If you use Windows, there are several free noise-reduction programs available. I've been using one called PictureCooler which seems pretty effective and simple to use.
It has an extremely effective preview mode in which you can easily toggle the view between the before/after versions and tweak the settings before final application. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:37:33 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Cmon folks, feel the noise, at least its REAL. |
What's the difference if you use NI properly when shooting with say a noisy nikon d70 or if you don't use it but you shoot with a 20d...so because my camera may not have noise-reduction software built in like the 20d, you're saying I shouldn't get rid of it whereas the user of the 20d can and their shot is more 'real'?
I'm just making a point. Personally, I like noise myself, but feel it's greatly voted down upon here on DPC anyway. I'm with you, but I just don't see the difference in using NI properly and shooting with a noise-reduction 20d.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:45:15 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Cmon folks, feel the noise, at least its REAL. |
Personally, I like noise myself, but feel it's greatly voted down upon here on DPC anyway. I'm with you, but I just don't see the difference in using NI properly and shooting with a noise-reduction 20d. |
My submissions for the two Silhouette challenges may offer a comparison ... the first had a grainy look I rather liked, the second is one of the few submissions to which I've applied noise-reduction -- I don't think it looks plastic or over-processed myself.
 
One other benefit of slight noise reduction: those noisy pixels are seen by the JPEG algorithm as "detail" -- by smoothing out the blue in the sky of that second shot, the JPEG size went from 135k to 85k at the same compression level; I was then able to save it at one or two quality levels higher, preserving those precious kb for actual detail.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 11:49:38. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:51:28 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Cmon folks, feel the noise, at least its REAL. |
What's the difference if you use NI properly when shooting with say a noisy nikon d70 or if you don't use it but you shoot with a 20d...so because my camera may not have noise-reduction software built in like the 20d, you're saying I shouldn't get rid of it whereas the user of the 20d can and their shot is more 'real'?
I'm just making a point. Personally, I like noise myself, but feel it's greatly voted down upon here on DPC anyway. I'm with you, but I just don't see the difference in using NI properly and shooting with a noise-reduction 20d. |
I believe the OP himself made it clear he's referring to over-processed, plastic-looking images, of which we see far too many in here. He said in so many words, if you must use it "use it sparingly". And he's right. IMO, anyway. I think it's ridiculous how "smooth" the voters are demanding our images be. There's nothing real about that at all. Life itself is a grainy endeavour, folks...
But even so, when it comes to unattractive, mottled noise coming out of the camera, something like NI is simply priceless in bringing your image to a presentable condition. I have it. I don't use it on all my images, on 90% of those I use it on it's at way low power, and the few times I pour it on it's for a specific artistic effect, but I haven't entered a challenge with any of those, nor do I intend to, thouhg I am tempted in "beauty"...
Robt.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:10:14 PM · #8 |
Thanks Robt.
Thats it exactly.
Here is an example.
My blue ribbon photo, Carefree:
Now for the neat-imaged version. This one is on the edge. I used the evaluation version of NI to get this look, and the noise reduction goes too far... but not by much. Notice how the cloud detail is smeared around.
This following, however, is typical of what we usually see here. This is an iso 1600 image with NI liberally applied.
Compare to the non NI version.
I prefer the noisy version, but thats just me. Careful application of NI (or other noise reduction routines) could give the image a cleaner appearence and preserve more detail than the first example. But use of any such application will destroy detail along with the noise. So go easy on it! Thats all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:17:22 PM · #9 |
good thread.
personally, i like high-noise photos myself. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:20:09 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
good thread.
personally, i like high-noise photos myself. |
I do too most of the time. It can really add a lot of texture and interest to an other wise boring shot. It's not always a bad thing.
I have to partially agree with mcmurma. It's not good to see plastic faces. :)
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:22:41 PM · #11 |
I only use NI to kill the noise in blue skies. I hate blotchy skies. If you use it right it has very little effect on the rest of the image since you can select what colors get adjusted.
I agree with most of the discussion here, if you can tell the image has been NI'd, it's too much.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 03:55:11 PM · #12 |
If you were to do some analysis, comparing the comments:
"Too much noise" etc.
wtih
"Over NI'd" or the like
I would venture to guess more people complain about noise.
 |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 06:59:39 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
If you were to do some analysis, comparing the comments:
"Too much noise" etc.
wtih
"Over NI'd" or the like
I would venture to guess more people complain about noise. |
Yeah, they do, but that's what we are FIGHTING against. It feels like there's an artificial standard being embraced by a significant percentage of voters that ANY noise is bad noise, that "perfectly smooth with NO grain or noise" is an objective standard of perfection. IMO, and in the opinion of many others, apparently, this is very wrong. And I think it's harmful to one's photography skills to assume this as your standard...
But every time I allow noise to remain in my images, I get hammered for it. Even very even, tight, clean noise. My Ansel Adams entry was downgraded for noise, for example, and that just stunned me. I did do a version with more neat image, but the problem is an Ansel has to be sharp as a tack in the details, and you can't preserve detail with neat image... Of course, I could have made it less noisy had I had the foresight to go out and buy a dSLR... But I "is stuck with what I has"...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 19:00:31.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 07:44:13 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... Of course, I could have made it less noisy had I had the foresight to go out and buy a dSLR...
Robt. |
How can the camera reduce noise while retaining detail, and why can't post-exposure software replicate the effect? |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 09:16:16 PM · #15 |
The trick with using neat image (like most filters) is that you should pretty much never apply the filter to the whole image at once.
NI works really well if you only apply it to the regions of the image that don't have any details. Blanket, heavy handed application of this, like any other filter, just looks unsubtle and unpleasant on most images. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 10:59:01 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bear_music:
... Of course, I could have made it less noisy had I had the foresight to go out and buy a dSLR...
Robt. |
How can the camera reduce noise while retaining detail, and why can't post-exposure software replicate the effect? |
Gordon, I think this question was for you : ) |
|
|
|
05/29/2005 12:15:46 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The trick with using neat image (like most filters) is that you should pretty much never apply the filter to the whole image at once.
NI works really well if you only apply it to the regions of the image that don't have any details. Blanket, heavy handed application of this, like any other filter, just looks unsubtle and unpleasant on most images. |
Unfortunately, the B/W conversion of the AA challenge introduced noise into the sky (unavoidable) and reducing the noise killed the natural look of the clouds. Take a look at my AA entry; I think the noise is NOT objectionable at all. Voters disagreed...
R.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 12:38:17 AM · #18 |
Hiya Robert,
Your AA entry looks pretty darn good to me. Though I do see what you mean about the noise and it's not surprising to me that folks voted it down. It's a shame, for sure.
One technique that some users may not be aware of is the selective use of noise reduction, as Gordon mentioned earlier. But, as you have noted with your AA entry, it was the parts that needed cleaning that were the most adversely affected!
Selectively cleaning might could help.
1) Use the lasso (or similar) tool, and set a feather amount of around 50 pixels (you will need to vary this accordingly... smaller images less, larger images more), then select only the areas you want the reduction in, and apply the filter.
Alternately, you can select the areas you DON'T want noise reduction in, invert your selection, then apply the filter.
2) Try Applying the noise reduction to specific channels. Blue is often the worst in terms of noise, with Red coming in second. So you may want to try applying the noise reduction to just one or both of these channels. (Assuming your image is in RBG mode.)
To do this, make sure the Layers palette is open, and the Channels tab selected, then hit the little arrow thingy and choose Split Channels.
Run the noise reduction on the offending channel(s) and then choose Merge Channels to recombine.
Technology is a beautiful thing.
Of course, you can always use any combination of the two. It's not like there are any rules :) |
|
|
|
05/29/2005 01:18:11 AM · #19 |
I like noise...and I even like grain in photographs...
If the lighting sucks go with it anyways...Diffuse it or what ever...work with the grain.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 01:55:30 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Hiya Robert,
Your AA entry looks pretty darn good to me. Though I do see what you mean about the noise and it's not surprising to me that folks voted it down. It's a shame, for sure.
One technique that some users may not be aware of is the selective use of noise reduction, as Gordon mentioned earlier. But, as you have noted with your AA entry, it was the parts that needed cleaning that were the most adversely affected!
Selectively cleaning might could help.
1) Use the lasso (or similar) tool, and set a feather amount of around 50 pixels (you will need to vary this accordingly... smaller images less, larger images more), then select only the areas you want the reduction in, and apply the filter.
Alternately, you can select the areas you DON'T want noise reduction in, invert your selection, then apply the filter.
2) Try Applying the noise reduction to specific channels. Blue is often the worst in terms of noise, with Red coming in second. So you may want to try applying the noise reduction to just one or both of these channels. (Assuming your image is in RBG mode.)
To do this, make sure the Layers palette is open, and the Channels tab selected, then hit the little arrow thingy and choose Split Channels.
Run the noise reduction on the offending channel(s) and then choose Merge Channels to recombine.
Technology is a beautiful thing.
Of course, you can always use any combination of the two. It's not like there are any rules :) |
I fought like a demon with that image. I have like 15 versions of it. That was the one that was most faithful to the AA style. I'm well aware of how to use noise reduction in different channels, and sharoening too for that matter. This was just an image that resisted all my efforts, but I had NO weather window in the challenge period and was luck even to get that one done...
But I hear ya...
R.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 07:21:19 AM · #21 |
when i discovered NI few months ago i was pretty enthousiastic about this software..the sensation lasted about a few hours and i never used it again eversince..
okay a sky might improve with a little NI but i think most images start to look like one cosmetic face-lift too much or like silicon brests
not my cup of tea ..i rather have a few wrinkles or some natural gravity
my 2cts
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 07:30:07 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
If you were to do some analysis, comparing the comments:
"Too much noise" etc.
wtih
"Over NI'd" or the like
I would venture to guess more people complain about noise.
|
It would be interesting if more people realize that noise is a part of the craft. Knowing when to leave it alone, and when to plastic it is a skill. I reckon many people who do buy NI or other noise-reduction software think that any noise is bad, and they automatically and liberally apply it to their images, and assume that images with grain are "less accomplished" when they vote here or evaluate images in general. I agree with messerschmitt. Grain is like wrinkles. Naturally occuring grain in an image with good composition, lighting, etc adds character.
Just my two rupees.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 07:40:38 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Hiya Robert,
Your AA entry looks pretty darn good to me. Though I do see what you mean about the noise and it's not surprising to me that folks voted it down. It's a shame, for sure.
One technique that some users may not be aware of is the selective use of noise reduction, as Gordon mentioned earlier. But, as you have noted with your AA entry, it was the parts that needed cleaning that were the most adversely affected!
Selectively cleaning might could help.
1) Use the lasso (or similar) tool, and set a feather amount of around 50 pixels (you will need to vary this accordingly... smaller images less, larger images more), then select only the areas you want the reduction in, and apply the filter.
Alternately, you can select the areas you DON'T want noise reduction in, invert your selection, then apply the filter.
2) Try Applying the noise reduction to specific channels. Blue is often the worst in terms of noise, with Red coming in second. So you may want to try applying the noise reduction to just one or both of these channels. (Assuming your image is in RBG mode.)
To do this, make sure the Layers palette is open, and the Channels tab selected, then hit the little arrow thingy and choose Split Channels.
Run the noise reduction on the offending channel(s) and then choose Merge Channels to recombine.
Technology is a beautiful thing.
Of course, you can always use any combination of the two. It's not like there are any rules :) |
Usually I create a mask, based on the details in the image. (the sort typically used for edge sharpening - it only picks out details, effectively) I then apply NI to a duplicate layer of the image and apply the inverse of the edge mask to that noise reduced layer. Pretty much what you get then is noise removed from what should be smooth areas and no noise reduction on actual features or edges in the image. Works pretty well with some thought applied to the opacity and also a bit of further blurring/ contrast adjustment on the initial edge mask. |
|
|
|
05/29/2005 08:49:02 AM · #24 |
I think it should be pointed out to any non-members reading this that much of what is being discussed is not allowed for 'Basic Editing' challenges...
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Hiya Robert,
Your AA entry looks pretty darn good to me. Though I do see what you mean about the noise and it's not surprising to me that folks voted it down. It's a shame, for sure.
One technique that some users may not be aware of is the selective use of noise reduction, as Gordon mentioned earlier. But, as you have noted with your AA entry, it was the parts that needed cleaning that were the most adversely affected!
Selectively cleaning might could help.
1) Use the lasso (or similar) tool, and set a feather amount of around 50 pixels (you will need to vary this accordingly... smaller images less, larger images more), then select only the areas you want the reduction in, and apply the filter.
Alternately, you can select the areas you DON'T want noise reduction in, invert your selection, then apply the filter.
2) Try Applying the noise reduction to specific channels. Blue is often the worst in terms of noise, with Red coming in second. So you may want to try applying the noise reduction to just one or both of these channels. (Assuming your image is in RBG mode.)
To do this, make sure the Layers palette is open, and the Channels tab selected, then hit the little arrow thingy and choose Split Channels.
Run the noise reduction on the offending channel(s) and then choose Merge Channels to recombine.
Technology is a beautiful thing.
Of course, you can always use any combination of the two. It's not like there are any rules :) |
Usually I create a mask, based on the details in the image. (the sort typically used for edge sharpening - it only picks out details, effectively) I then apply NI to a duplicate layer of the image and apply the inverse of the edge mask to that noise reduced layer. Pretty much what you get then is noise removed from what should be smooth areas and no noise reduction on actual features or edges in the image. Works pretty well with some thought applied to the opacity and also a bit of further blurring/ contrast adjustment on the initial edge mask. |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2005 11:10:43 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
And stop the NEAT-IMAGE Insanity!
GACK! If there is one thing that really irks me about viewing images at this site it's the overabundance of plastic looking, oversmoothed, excessively neat-imaged photos!
I mean really, you can spot them from across the room and they are downright GROSS!
Cmon folks, feel the noise, at least its REAL. If you must you neatimage then buy the full version and use it SPARINGLY.
Thank you for your time. |
Well said, this is exactly why I don't submit any more..... |
|
