Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

[hughbie]

Having cocked up some shots of an egret taking off, amongst others, - failing light, wrong ISO etc, - just wondering if better results can be recovered with Neat Image and the like. Lot of noise in background sky in particular.

The post on Noise v MPixels, prompted this posting.

I shoot RAW, process in Lightroom v2.5. Is DPP more effective than LR? Operator error, not the 7D.

Any input gratefully received.

[Canon-Fodder!]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Hi hughbie;

Neat Image has worked well for me when required. Needs to be used judiciously; it can soften images considerably if over-used.

You can try a free evaluation here...

Can't comment on LR, and I don't use DPPs (or PhotoShop's) noise reduction. I find Neat Image gives far greater control...

Noise Ninja is another frequently promoted noise reduction software... You can download that as well for a trial, but it dumps a watermark on the image!

[Millie]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Needs to be used judiciously; it can soften images considerably if over-used.

LOL I agree, sometimes the cure looks worse than the noise.

Having cocked up some shots of an egret taking off, amongst others, - failing light, wrong ISO etc, - just wondering if better results can be recovered with Neat Image and the like. Lot of noise in background sky in particular.

I personally loathe the effect of NR software, however sometimes needs must.

You could look at the using ‘the dodgy old trick’ of just applying the NR filter to certain areas of an image such as the background and sky. (Selective NR)

Form memory the egret is a white, fine feathered bird, if the bird's body is noisy, I’d bin the image and try to get another; unless it was very important.

NR - weapon of last resort imho.

Millie

[hughbie]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Thanks folks,
Didn't realise it softened things so much. I assumed there had to be a trade off somewhere but was no sure what.

Millie,
the egret's not a life and death issue, was just a god example if I wanted to waste sometime on trying out this NR caper. Last resort, as you say.

Hughbie

[briansquibb]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

I have spotted that posting attachments to the forum adds quite a bit of noise to the picture.

[hughbie]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Thanks Brian but its not a posting issue, just a pants photo.

[briansquibb]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Most of my photos are pants but I have noticed the extra noise - like on the macro picture I posted today - I originally had it as an attachment but the noise was awfull which disappeared when changed to IMG

It wasn't my intention to suggest that was the problem with your photo

[Millie]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

the egret's not a life and death issue, was just a god example if I wanted to waste sometime on trying out this NR caper. Last resort, as you say.

I think it's good to experiment and learn about these tools.

I read somewhere that you shouldn't bin images because of noise and some other problems.
The thinking being: is your editing skills will improve, and will be coupled with advances in editing software.
Making many images worth re-visiting in the future.

Millie

[Canon-Fodder!]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

I think it's good to experiment and learn about these tools.

I read somewhere that you shouldn't bin images because of noise and some other problems.
The thinking being: is your editing skills will improve, and will be coupled with advances in editing software.
Making many images worth re-visiting in the future.

Millie

Correct!

I have re-visited many of my early digital attempts, and re-worked them as I've learnt more to produce 'better' images... and I'm sure the same will be true in the future; it's all a moving feast!

I also find it's useful simply to go back & re-review settings & results to understand better what I did wrong then, compared with what I (don't) know today...

As Donald Rumsfeld usefully said at one stage... "...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

[eeyore]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Funny that with film 'noise' wasn't a major issue, ( one just chose the film for the conditions) as 'noise' then was called 'grain', which also happened to be an artistic style. Now because of digital terminology, 'noise' is an unwanted distraction, and therefore must be eliminated in order to produce the ideal result. Hence, software companies producing the ideal 'noise reduction' software and making a mint, as digital punters are searching for the ideal 'medicine' to 'cure' the image. Also the battle with camera models to produce less noise. The war with megapixels maybe over, now a new war with noise (?) I find that DPP is fine to use, and haven't had an issue with noise, but then what is noise? Different levels with different people!! i think that if one uses too much noise reduction, it can really ruin a picture, so in this case it would be better to leave it as it is. Secondly, noise (sometimes) can only be seen say at 200%. If noise can't be seen on a normal sized print, say at 8x 10 in, then there is no point in reducing nose!

I've got a headache now, there is just too much noise!

[briansquibb]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

I think that with film, grain was predictable and near enough constant across the picture.

I have found that noise pops its head up more when doing post processing work - hence my experiements in getting pictures straight from the camera.

Brian

[Millie]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

The war with megapixels maybe over, now a new war with noise (?)

Yes a “war with noise” !
It’s not as trivial as the war with megapixels imho.

Maybe I’ve got this wrong, I thought the 35mm film format had pretty much reached a ‘development plateau’. The camera makers could only add bells and whistles to the bodies and try to make better lenses. Film development: faster film, less grain I didn't really happen to a great extent ??

The war on noise - ISO 1600 is the new ISO 400 in the space of around 2-3 years, I think it’s great.

Millie

[briansquibb]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

Yes a “war with noise” !

Maybe I’ve got this wrong, I thought the 35mm film format had pretty much reached a ‘development plateau’. The camera makers could only add bells and whistles to the bodies and try to make better lenses.

Millie

There wasn't much further to go in film - although it would be interesting to put the 1D IV AF and metering into a film camera

Brian

[colin C]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

I sometimes shoot my EOS 1N alongside my MKIV and the difference in performance is quite amazing, but it isn't worth putting all that technology in the 1N, as the film is the limiting factor. ISO 400 film is far too grainy compared to digital and I can only use that in good light.

It doesn't seem that long ago that a 1 series film body was the most advanced camera on the planet.

Colin

[Millie]

Re: Noise Reduction Software - useful or not?

although it would be interesting to put the 1D IV AF and metering into a film camera

Brian, That's what I meant by bells and whistles.

It doesn't seem that long ago that a 1 series film body was the most advanced camera on the planet.

Colin, what about the diff between the 1dMk11 & 4 noise wise?
Is the D3 still 'the boss' in the "high ISO low nosie race" even though is was realeased about a year before the IDmk4 ?

Not a question that concerns me.
Millie