Neat Image

gubbs

I downloaded the demo version last night, seems to do a good job in very straightforward way. Not the greatest picture and the dancing is even worse, but here's anexample done on the default settings

Before


After

wxwax

That's pretty good. I've been using Noise Ninja, it seems OK. You definitely have to give up sharpness to get rid of noise.

ginger_55

Charleston Carriage and horse 18mm by ginger

wxwax wrote:

That's pretty good. I've been using Noise Ninja, it seems OK. You definitely have to give up sharpness to get rid of noise.

What do you think about adding a bit of grain?



I have considered putting this on the Challenge, but I don't think it would make the short list. ETc.

ginger
Was a bit soft, just in general. I have it in color and blk and white: with and without grain, the grain adds IMO, plus adding a smidgen of sharpness.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

That's pretty good. I've been using Noise Ninja, it seems OK. You definitely have to give up sharpness to get rid of noise.

I have Noise Ninja 2.0 but rarely use it. I have played a bit with taking noisy images to the LAB color space and using a Gaussian blur of 4-8 pixels equally in the "a" and "b" color spaces. This is easy and quick and seems to help some. It is courtesy of S Kelby's PS CS for Digital Photographers. The beauty of this is you really don't have to put up with a lot of blur since the lightness channel is not touched - you can even sharpen in the lightness channel while you are there, which is what I usually do.

DoctorIt

nice legs

cletus

DoctorIt wrote:

nice legs

The horse or the dancing guy

gubbs

cletus wrote:

The horse or the dancing guy

gotta be the horse!

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

I have Noise Ninja 2.0 but rarely use it. I have played a bit with taking noisy images to the LAB color space and using a Gaussian blur of 4-8 pixels equally in the "a" and "b" color spaces. This is easy and quick and seems to help some. It is courtesy of S Kelby's PS CS for Digital Photographers. The beauty of this is you really don't have to put up with a lot of blur since the lightness channel is not touched - you can even sharpen in the lightness channel while you are there, which is what I usually do.

Gonna try that trick. Dan mentioned it or something like it during his class, but then there was so much to learn there that I only absorbed about one quarter of it at best.

DoctorIt

rutt wrote:

Gonna try that trick. Dan mentioned it or something like it during his class, but then there was so much to learn there that I only absorbed about one quarter of it at best.

i haven't figured out how to sharpen only a certain channel, what am I doing wrong? is it a layer thing? do I somehow do a curves adjustment via layers? help!

cletus

DoctorIt wrote:

i haven't figured out how to sharpen only a certain channel, what am I doing wrong? is it a layer thing? do I somehow do a curves adjustment via layers? help!

doc,

To run USM (or most any operation for that mater) on a particular channel, you just need to have that channel selected in the Channels palette. For example here I have the blue channel selected:

At this point any operation I do will affect the blue channel.

Also note that the channel palette tells you the shortcut key to get a particular channel: Ctrl + 1 for red, Ctrl + 2 for green, etc...

DoctorIt

cletus wrote:

doc,



To run USM (or most any operation for that mater) on a particular channel, you just need to have that channel selected in the Channels palette. For example here I have the blue channel selected
Also note that the channel palette tells you the shortcut key to get a particular channel: Ctrl + 1 for red, Ctrl + 2 for green, etc...

Duh.

:thwak

thanks PS challenge master.

wxwax

ginger_55 wrote:

What do you think about adding a bit of grain?

Ginger, I'm deeply conflicted about the grain issue. I like the look of big grain film. But I can't get past the ugliness and multi-color aspect of digital camera noise. It's just different, for some reason.

mercphoto

grain

wxwax wrote:

Ginger, I'm deeply conflicted about the grain issue. I like the look of big grain film. But I can't get past the ugliness and multi-color aspect of digital camera noise. It's just different, for some reason.

I'm trying to remember where I read this, but digital noise is different than film grain, and it is not as pleasing. It may be because digital noise is "colored", whereas film grain is not, don't know. I just remember reading it in some magazine about an explanation about why not all pixels are created equal, and why cameras with larger sensors (and hence less noise) are better than cameras with small sensors, given equal pixel counts.

wxwax

mercphoto wrote:

I'm trying to remember where I read this, but digital noise is different than film grain, and it is not as pleasing. It may be because digital noise is "colored", whereas film grain is not, don't know. I just remember reading it in some magazine about an explanation about why not all pixels are created equal, and why cameras with larger sensors (and hence less noise) are better than cameras with small sensors, given equal pixel counts.

Makes sense to me. Something about it just isn't as nice to look at as grainy film.

Ric Grupe

Neat Image...
...does way better! Practice a little and read the help! Neat Image will make this a good photo.

wxwax

Ric Grupe wrote:

...does way better! Practice a little and read the help! Neat Image will make this a good photo.

Are you saying Neat Image is better than Noise Ninja, based on your work with both programs?

Ric Grupe

No!

wxwax wrote:

Are you saying Neat Image is better than Noise Ninja, based on your work with both programs?

I was replying to the original post. That NI edited photo is not typical of what can be done with proper use. NN is a fine program. NI was my first choice and the differance, to me , isn't worth further expense.

wxwax

Thanks, I have Ninja, never tried Neat, was curious about the difference.