Noise Reduction software

pwhittle · 19 June 2009, 11:59

does the likes of Noise Ninja work well? CS3 doesn't seem to do it well, and in-camera NR just softens images.
I've seen printed before / after comparisons, but you can't really see any difference due to the the print quality.

I tend to stick to low ISOs at weddings, sometimes at the expense of shutter speed, and I can't afford a 5d mk2!

HankScorpio · 19 June 2009, 13:50

I bought Noise Ninja a few years ago and was very impressed. Easy to overdo tho and then everything looks plastic.
Currently use Lightroom and it does a good enough job for me.

I think I might have a NN comparison I did once, will check.

HankScorpio · 19 June 2009, 14:14

Found it quicker than I thought, this was done as a demo for a guy on another forum.

And this is one where it's a touch overdone, it's just too smooth.

And just for comparison, this is the original:

pwhittle · 19 June 2009, 14:48

first one looks impressive
got a church wedding tomorrow, so I may need it afterwards

pwhittle · 19 June 2009, 18:39

just downloaded Imagenomic Noiseware Professional
there's a grid on the 'after' shot, as I haven't registered it.
pretty impressive though (shot at ISO1600)

used default values, haven't created a noise profile or anything which would involve reading the instructions

£40 well spent I reckon

Milamber · 20 June 2009, 01:07

I've always found noise ninja to be excellent.

Hoppy · 20 June 2009, 09:32

Interesting stuff chaps

Do you always use NR, or only when it's necessary? If so, what are the downsides?

Has anybody got a comparison between a straight shot at low ISO, and one at high ISO with NR?

One of the problems with shooting at high ISO is the loss of dynamic range. Does NR effectively rescue that?

What happens if you take a file that's been treated with what I call Faux HDR (which I like) and NR?

I call it Faux HDR when you just take a single normal Raw (or even JPEG) file, then boost the shadows and compress the highlights. IMO it looks really good, distinctive yet natural, but you can get noisy shadows. There's a good tutorial and samples here: Vanilla Days : HDR Tutorial: How to create ‘High Dynamic Range’ images using Photomatix

HankScorpio · 20 June 2009, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoppy

Do you always use NR, or only when it's necessary? If so, what are the downsides?

In the olden days for trackdays, it was a defined part of my workflow. Because the results I was looking for were speed dependant, I'd be in shutter priority but I'd also have auto ISO on so I could maintain a particular shutter speed pretty much regardless if conditions changed.
As a result, pics from 3 o'clock on a grey november afternoon would be noisier than their sunny morning counterparts. Step in NN and it all gets sorted.
I did find the balance between noise reduction and detail reduction a fine one but a light touch gave good results, good enough for 12x8s from 6MP anyway.

I might give that hdr thing a try later.

joni · 22 June 2009, 06:46

I have used the pseudo HDR thing and it can work well but prefer the results when using Shadow/Highlight adjustment in PS particularly if using a 16 bit Tiff file after RAW conversion. It's far less noisy and retains a more natural less forced look.

Duck_Pond · 22 June 2009, 14:22

I always use Neat Image. If you're only generating images less than 1000x1000 then it's free too.

There's also a sharpening option within it, which can be handy at times. Works for me.

Iain Young · 22 June 2009, 16:45

Another vote for Neat Image. Seems to do a good job. I also use Neat Video (same thing except for tidying up video in Premiere), which also works well (although slows down render times quite a lot).