Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: dwdallam on October 16, 2007, 02:56:40 am
-
Aside from the thread about zero noise using 4 stop method, what plug in do you all use or recommend for noise removal?
Is the new CS3 competitive with noise removal as the dedicated plug in are?
I do now have CS3, and I'm liking it. And to simplify things, I'd like to do as much as I can with CS3, not to mention it COST PLENTY AND SHOULD NOT NEED NOISE REMOVAL PLUG INS!
Seriously, any software that processes photography costing nearly 2000US should have a very good set of noise removal filters. Geeeze Adobe.
-
Neat Image and Noise Ninja are both well-regarded noise removal filters. Do a google search and you can download free trials of both.
-
Add Noiseware (http://www.imagenomic.com/nwpg.aspx) to Jonathan's list.
-
I was gonna ask about Noiseware. I have both Noiseware Pro v4 and Noise Ninja 2.1.0. I really had no reason to use them much, just opting for PS CS2 options to reduce noise, both in RAW and then in PS.
OK so much for which "brand." Do these plugins offer "real" benefits over PSCS3 noise removal?
The reason I never went into using these plugins was because I really didn't see the need in my real world applications.
-
FWIW, I use them very rarely and only with high ISO images or severely under-exposed photos. I haven't made extensive comparisons of plug-ins vs CS 3 but I tend to simplify my workflow and use plug-ins (as I did with CS 2 and CS). On the limited tests I did, I found that they offer better results than CS 3 but it might also be my inexperience with CS 3 noise removal tools.
-
Well, CS3 now has a filter called Remove Noise. I've been using it and it seems very good.
FWIW, I use them very rarely and only with high ISO images or severely under-exposed photos. I haven't made extensive comparisons of plug-ins vs CS 3 but I tend to simplify my workflow and use plug-ins (as I did with CS 2 and CS). On the limited tests I did, I found that they offer better results than CS 3 but it might also be my inexperience with CS 3 noise removal tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If you're satisfied with PS CS 3 noise removal, then I don't see any reason to look elsewhere. That's also the reason I haven't looked too much into CS 3 noise removal as I'm satisfied with my current workflow. Anyway, I don't think that there's a day and night difference between CS 3 and plug-ins - at least for my photos.
PS: for normal images with little noise, Lightroom is more than sufficient.
-
I processed a night shot with CS3's noise removal and had it printed it today. Looks really good at 12 x 18.
If you're satisfied with PS CS 3 noise removal, then I don't see any reason to look elsewhere. That's also the reason I haven't looked too much into CS 3 noise removal as I'm satisfied with my current workflow. Anyway, I don't think that there's a day and night difference between CS 3 and plug-ins - at least for my photos.
PS: for normal images with little noise, Lightroom is more than sufficient.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146330\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Wow. I'm shocked. I use Neat Image all the time. I wouldn't consider shooting over ISO 400 without it. The Adobe tools are coming along, but I don't find them anywhere near as effective as Neat Image.
Perhaps it's a matter of inertia. I started using Neat Image with my old Canon S50 P&S about four years ago. S-series Canons are pretty easy to carry around all the time, like when you have some good reason not to haul an SLR out. But the noise can get pretty bad at high ISOs. Neat Image is incredibly effective on S50 RAWs, so I got accustomed to using it almost all the time.
Once I started using DSLRs, I just kept going. I'll admit that they don't benefit to the same degree as the S50, but they still definitely benefit, esp. at ISO 800 or above. With a good shot of Neat Image, I feel I can got a lot further with capture sharpening, since noise won't get amplified if it isn't there to begin with. You can use simple masks to constrain the noise reduction to shadows or specific tonal areas. I think it really makes a big improvement on highly enlarged prints.
-
Wow. I'm shocked. I use Neat Image all the time. I wouldn't consider shooting over ISO 400 without it. The Adobe tools are coming along, but I don't find them anywhere near as effective as Neat Image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you tried CS3's noise removal filter yet?
-
CS3 does good work with my DSLR images. Of course those images need little in the way of noise reduction.
Neat Image is a godsend for the G9. And older 300D images do better with neat image than CS3.
-
Have you tried CS3's noise removal filter yet?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I have. It's pretty good, but I'll still use Neat Image when I need a high-mag enlargement of a high ISO file. My experience is similar to DarkPenguin's when it comes to smaller sensors/older cameras.
Maybe I'm too concerned with noise from my 40D, which has low noise to begin with. As I said, it could be that I'm so used to working with Neat Image that I've made myself into a noiseophobe.
I guess the thing I like best about Neat Image is that once you establish a noise profile for each camera/ISO combination, you can accomplish the whole noise removal process without image-specific tweaking. I haven't been able to do that with the CS3 tool. I always end up tweaking one channel or more, and that just takes more time. I imagine a real CS3 expert could find a way to handle it through actions or something.
-
I use both Neat Image and CS3's noise removal filter. I've been using NI since the dark ages and rely on it heavily for images shot at ISO400 and above (I shoot with a 5D). I've compared NI with Noise Ninja and just liked the layout/GUI of NI better. The actual results seemed comparable. I keep meaning to try Noiseware but just haven't gotten around to it.
On the NI vs. CS3 front, I feel NI is much more tweaklabe and generally produces cleaner, sharper results. I do feel tho that CS3 does a better job of helping minimize non typical "noise" such as pixelation or any "blotchiness" from low bit depths, over processing, etc. (e.g. unwanted non-ISO related artifacts). So for me, both NI and CS3's filter have their uses.
Cheers!
-
I own a Panasonic DMC-FZ50, it's quiet but very noisy . I could not imagine a day without Noiseware. I particularly like the presets, "portrait", "landscape" etc., although they need (and allow for) some tweaking (I know have a specific setting for birds to preserve detail in their feathers). I have tried Lightroom's noise suppression but when it comes to ease of use, Noiseware is a lot easier. Same goes for the NR in CS3.
Rgds,
Tom
-
If the noise is really strong a solution such as Neat Image works better because it can be tweaked to your personal circumstances (your scanner/film, that particular picture, your camera). The in-built function of PS CS3 works very well but it is not as "intelligent".
If you have already paid for PS and don't want to add an extra expense though, the noise removal function of PS is quite effective if the noise is not at very high levels: I suggest you use it only on one channel:
Mode: RGB; Channels; look at actual pixels size to see which of the three channels is the more noisy, it generally is the blue with scenes in the sun light (and generally but not always is also blue in scenes with artificial light). Then apply the noise reduction only on the channel with the highest levels of noise.
If the noise in the picture is not at very high levels, this is a very effective tecnique which does not require any extra expense.
Cheers
Fabrizio