Noise removal tool
Discussion
Who else uses noise ninja (or any other noise removal tool)?
Its fantastic, does exactly what it says on the tin, and does a far better job than I had imagined it would! Very very pleased with it indeed.
However, I have noticed that it strips the detail out of waves at sea, and other more uniform patterns like the fabric from a table cloth. I cant see a way around this.
But for most images, even on the default settings, it works like magic
So well in fact, even if you dont *need* to remove noise ie for stock photography, it is still woth considering as an addition to your arsenal, especially if you blow up and print your images.
I'll post some before and after shots sometime. (sometime in 2008, when Ive finished my processing)
Its fantastic, does exactly what it says on the tin, and does a far better job than I had imagined it would! Very very pleased with it indeed.
However, I have noticed that it strips the detail out of waves at sea, and other more uniform patterns like the fabric from a table cloth. I cant see a way around this.
But for most images, even on the default settings, it works like magic
So well in fact, even if you dont *need* to remove noise ie for stock photography, it is still woth considering as an addition to your arsenal, especially if you blow up and print your images. I'll post some before and after shots sometime. (sometime in 2008, when Ive finished my processing)
Neat Image for me. You need to select a clean area.. blank.. like sky no clouds.. no detail.. de-focused bg. That way it can find the noise. rather than an overall de-noise.
Noise shoudl be pretty much the same.. so a tip (work in neat image)
Shoot a blank card at all ISO's in various lighting situations.. sunny, shade etc..
run ya little application.. to denoise.. save the setting it comes up with.. then use those on set images.. should work fine. Also worth fine tuning after.
If its not working on some areas.. shirts, grass etc.. apply to a new layer.. then erase in PS the areas its messed up.
hope this helps a bit.. not being a noise ninja user.
Si
Noise shoudl be pretty much the same.. so a tip (work in neat image)
Shoot a blank card at all ISO's in various lighting situations.. sunny, shade etc..
run ya little application.. to denoise.. save the setting it comes up with.. then use those on set images.. should work fine. Also worth fine tuning after.
If its not working on some areas.. shirts, grass etc.. apply to a new layer.. then erase in PS the areas its messed up.
hope this helps a bit.. not being a noise ninja user.
Si
robdickinson said:
Why did I know who started this thread before I looked...
Because your unconscious mind takes in information your brain is not consciouly processing. For example, noises in the room, the name of the individual who started a thread, and which members own a can of whoopass with your name written all over it. chris.mapey said:
robdickinson said:
Why did I know who started this thread before I looked...
beano500 said:
If only I'd bought a canon
... I'd be keen to see NN vs NI head to head. Although I wouldnt admit as much online, certainly not in a photogrpahy forum.
[quote=UKBob
I snigger right back at you, chris dot mapey.
[/quote]
Hi Rob
Got to say it - your images are really very good, but don't get too hung up on the technicals (like noise, ISO, etc) - capture the image...Most of my landscapes I try and grab the "feel" of the shot, and as long as it's in focus & OK for exposure then I'm happy...
Good luck & happy shooting
Chris
chris.mapey said:
robdickinson said:
Why did I know who started this thread before I looked...
[/quote]
Hi Rob Got to say it - your images are really very good, but don't get too hung up on the technicals (like noise, ISO, etc) - capture the image...Most of my landscapes I try and grab the "feel" of the shot, and as long as it's in focus & OK for exposure then I'm happy...
Good luck & happy shooting
Chris
UKBob said:
robdickinson said:
Why did I know who started this thread before I looked...
Because your unconscious mind takes in information your brain is not consciouly processing. For example, noises in the room, the name of the individual who started a thread, and which members own a can of whoopass with your name written all over it. Sorry mate, I have a canon, so cant help you with the noise removal tools, so I just put in a joke comment...
sstein said:
Could someone possibly post what they consider a noisy picture, and the same pic with noise removed?
-
Stuart
-
Stuart
Eh I don't have any after shots as I don't yet own any of those fancy anti-noise tools, but here's a shot heavy with noise:
Just look at the blue in the sky. The mottling you see is noise. If that sky were a consistant blue/purple, that would be post-noise.
That photo was taken with a Panasonic FZ-20 (1/2.5" sensor), with 8 sec, f/2.8, ISO 80.
chris.mapey said:
Got to say it - your images are really very good, but don't get too hung up on the technicals (like noise, ISO, etc)
Thanks Chris. Just to be clear, the only aspect that I love more than 'photography in general' is shooting images for stock. It might just be a phase, so there is hope Its not that Im getting "hung up" about noise, its the fact that images with noise simply wont be accepted by said stock agencies. sstein said:
When you are talking about noise, what are you classing as 'too much' noise?
As regards submitting your images to stock agencies: First and last pics are very slightly noisy in places, not exccessively so though. Both could be accepted or rejected depending on the reviewer, on the day, although Id be inclined to bet the 4th image would be more likely to be rejected, looking at the top left corner. I dont mind the noise on the track. It provides a grain which in my opinion adds to the photograph.
Edited by UKBob on Monday 31st July 09:41
Noise removal in the before and after shot is most evident in the the top left and bottom right corners of each photo.
If noise wasnt important, we would all keep our ISO/ASA on 1600/3200, to ensure we never missed a shot due to lack of light.
And if noise wasnt important, camera reviews wouldnt feature noise comparison charts, we wouldnt debate the issue, and there would also be less Nikon users on forums like this one, pretending they dont suffer from a Canon inferiority complex
To my eye the difference between using a noise removal tool (vs not using one) is far greater than the difference between the 30D vs D200. Bearing in mind the fact that noise removal settings in the above photo were only about 50%. ie A great deal more noise could have been removed.
If noise wasnt important, we would all keep our ISO/ASA on 1600/3200, to ensure we never missed a shot due to lack of light.
And if noise wasnt important, camera reviews wouldnt feature noise comparison charts, we wouldnt debate the issue, and there would also be less Nikon users on forums like this one, pretending they dont suffer from a Canon inferiority complex
To my eye the difference between using a noise removal tool (vs not using one) is far greater than the difference between the 30D vs D200. Bearing in mind the fact that noise removal settings in the above photo were only about 50%. ie A great deal more noise could have been removed.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff