Forums > Photography Talk > 'De-noise' software?

Photographer

Derrick_G_FlossyFlick

Posts: 142

Edgewood, Maryland, US

I have Lightroom, Photoshop, Topaz Labs Denoise and Noise Ninja and I use Noise Ninja 95% of the time with masking so I can fine tune to taste....

Jan 19 13 06:30 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10747

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I didn't take it that way at all, Bro! wink But I don't try to represent "we" or "the rest of us".

Emails and posts are often confusing with "tone" so I (try) to give the benefit of the doubt until it get's VERY obvious the person is being an ass. Also could be ESL issues. Syntax/structure, etc.

you may have a point. I'll have to think about it smile problem is, the other possibilities aren't necessarily better. someone who doesnt know about a subject should probably not be posting, no?  I try to shut up on subjects like MFDB and pack/head systems and Nikon menu system and Mamya and cactus triggers and models flaking tongue

Jan 19 13 06:30 pm Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
you may have a point. I'll have to think about it smile

It's ALL good, Bro! I have learned so much SONY stuff from you I don't want you to shut down. It's all good. Just a small (kinda funny) point. I have my quirks too (lord knows!) Mayhem is always a trip!

Jan 19 13 06:34 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Couture

Posts: 602

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Not going to read and of the earlier posts in this thread because my faith in Noise Ninja is that great lol

Jan 19 13 07:13 pm Link

Photographer

TouchofEleganceStudios

Posts: 5477

Vallejo, California, US

Usually I tell everyone to be very quite and hush when I am shooting but when I still get noise I like Lightroom 4.

Jan 19 13 07:23 pm Link

Photographer

John Horwitz

Posts: 2920

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

Not sure I understand more demanding images??? This could be a perfect reason to upgrade your camera...

Jan 19 13 07:29 pm Link

Photographer

Worlds Of Water

Posts: 37732

Rancho Cucamonga, California, US

RGB Noise Removal on Photobrush 5.0... works for me... borat

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/GaryAbigt/IMATS13S1.jpg

Jan 19 13 09:41 pm Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5214

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

John Horwitz wrote:
Not sure I understand more demanding images??? This could be a perfect reason to upgrade your camera...

Hmm, okay.

A couple of things. As camera noise reduction improves then people will find ways of pushing the limitations still further. So noise reduction software will still be useful.

But specifically; John, let me ask you a question to demonstrate my point and my use of the term 'more demanding images':

You are shooting a sporting event, the light is very low and changeable. You are shooting with your lens at it's widest aperture of f2.8 and the shutter speed is at 1/1000 which you know is as slow as you can go to freeze the action. The only thing left for you to play with is your iso. And lets presume, for the sake of this argument, your camera is the best around for useable high iso.

You take a couple of test shots and the iso is high for an acceptable exposure. So high that you know from experience that you'll be getting noise in your images. 

So, whaddya do John? You can't 'upgrade your camera' because there is nothing else out there that handles noise better. Do you go home? Or do you shoot knowing that the application of the appropriate 'noise reduction' software will give you useable results?

Jan 20 13 01:27 am Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 17824

El Segundo, California, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
you may have a point. I'll have to think about it smile problem is, the other possibilities aren't necessarily better. someone who doesnt know about a subject should probably not be posting, no?

One generally is trying to gain information when they pose a question. Certainly, without tone of voice, it's a lot more friendly to assume that as a first-pass approximation, than take it as a challenge/insult.

As for noise reduction, I rarely shoot at higher ISOs; even 200-800 can be noisier than I like. But for the times I've needed more than Photoshop's native tools, I've found Topaz' noise reduction plug-in to be pretty effective at reducing noise while minimizing texture/detail loss. Since it came in a bundle when I got some plug-ins I particularly wanted, I counted it as a bonus--it was months after buying the set that I even launched DeNoise.

Jan 20 13 02:54 am Link

Photographer

John Horwitz

Posts: 2920

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

At some point I say 'Enough 'noise-reducing, megapixel, raw/jpg/tiff/bullshit, Canon-Nikon hostility, Mac or PC does not matter' and accept the fact that there is room for artistic artifacts in less than ideal situations, especially when it comes to shooting sports, which - by the way - are my very least favorite things to watch or shoot.

For years I shot with a Nikon D100 and NO noise reduction, m prints were displayed in hundreds of galleries and bought by dozens of people - not one asked me why I didn't 'reduce the noise' in my work.

The real beauty of film was that it had grain, 'digital' has noise, embrace what you have. IMHO many shooters would benefit from learning exposure and composition far more than noise reduction

Do you agree?

Jan 20 13 07:00 am Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 17824

El Segundo, California, US

John Horwitz wrote:
At some point I say 'Enough 'noise-reducing, megapixel, raw/jpg/tiff/bullshit, Canon-Nikon hostility, Mac or PC does not matter' and accept the fact that there is room for artistic artifacts in less than ideal situations

OK.IMHO many shooters would benefit from learning exposure and composition far more than noise reduction

OK.

Many people would also benefit from trying to understand a question and respond to it.

Jan 20 13 08:58 am Link

Photographer

John Horwitz

Posts: 2920

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

Kevin Connery wrote:

John Horwitz wrote:
At some point I say 'Enough 'noise-reducing, megapixel, raw/jpg/tiff/bullshit, Canon-Nikon hostility, Mac or PC does not matter' and accept the fact that there is room for artistic artifacts in less than ideal situations

OK.IMHO many shooters would benefit from learning exposure and composition far more than noise reduction

OK.

Many people would also benefit from trying to understand a question and respond to it.

OK Kevin - I understood the question....and for your edification here is the response: I use Neatimage and Noise Ninja and the part od LR that reduces noise; one is no better or no worse than the other.

There is no substitute for getting it right in the camera and if you must reduce noise, any of the current programs will do a good job. Having said that, the rampant obsession with 1.8 glass and uberzooms just baffles me!

Jan 20 13 09:44 am Link

Photographer

ArtisticGlamour

Posts: 3846

Phoenix, Arizona, US

John Horwitz wrote:
There is no substitute for getting it right in the camera and if you must reduce noise, any of the current programs will do a good job. Having said that, the rampant obsession with 1.8 glass and uberzooms just baffles me!

Well, ONLY as "right" as possible...BUT, I could NEVER get it "as right" with my old a350 (noisy bastard camera!) as the newer a55 or a77. So MUCH depends on the sensor and firmware in the first place...and some cameras did instil noise that HAD to be addressed after the camera was well out of the equation. That Camera Upgrade saved me LOTS of post-processing frustration.

Jan 20 13 11:10 am Link

Photographer

John Horwitz

Posts: 2920

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
That Camera Upgrade save me LOTS of post-processing frustration.

+1

Jan 20 13 11:18 am Link

Photographer

my_other_profile

Posts: 666

Ankeny, Iowa, US

Can anyone compare/contrast  Topaz, ImageNomic Noiseware, and PhotoNinja?  Thinking about making a purchase today; I've got some definite noise issues.

Jan 20 13 12:09 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 17824

El Segundo, California, US

John Horwitz wrote:
Having said that, the rampant obsession with 1.8 glass and uberzooms just baffles me!

1.8 too slow? I know I preferred 1.4, but there's something to be said for a zoom for quick adjustments, even if it might mean a faster film/higher ISO.

Jan 20 13 03:46 pm Link

Photographer

R Michael Walker

Posts: 11987

Costa Mesa, California, US

I find the newest version of Lightroom to be more than enough for my needs. And now that I have my D800 I rarely have any need for noise reduction unless I really screw something up. And then LR4x still does the job for me.

Jan 20 13 04:53 pm Link

Photographer

John Horwitz

Posts: 2920

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

Kevin Connery wrote:
1.8 too slow? I know I preferred 1.4, but there's something to be said for a zoom for quick adjustments, even if it might mean a faster film/higher ISO.

Problem w/zooms is twofold...first they are notoriously SOFT, a prime will outshine them any day of the week & second they make you LAZY...instead of concentrating on framing it only takes a flick of the wrist to make a poorly composed photograph...BLECH

1.4 vs 1.8 - marginal light gain and major cash drain!

Jan 20 13 05:18 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 17824

El Segundo, California, US

John Horwitz wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
1.8 too slow? I know I preferred 1.4, but there's something to be said for a zoom for quick adjustments, even if it might mean a faster film/higher ISO.

Problem w/zooms is twofold...first they are notoriously SOFT, a prime will outshine them any day of the week & second they make you LAZY...instead of concentrating on framing it only takes a flick of the wrist to make a poorly composed photograph...BLECH

Sports,

Jan 20 13 05:43 pm Link

Photographer

John Horwitz

Posts: 2920

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

Kevin Connery wrote:
Sports,

Hindenburg - a Pulitzer from a 4X5 Speed Graphic, 6 shots in 47 seconds - there isn't a Canon or Nikon or Leica or Minolta that can match a good eye and steady hand.

Zooms make you lazy

Jan 20 13 05:56 pm Link

Photographer

4point0

Posts: 687

Los Angeles, California, US

Ugh. The OP asked what software to use to reduce noise, not how to shoot without noise. Not everyone has the luxury of ideal shooting conditions.

Go to your local high school or middle school and shoot a basketball game or a nighttime football game, even at 2.8. It's free and accessible. It'll take an hour of your time and might teach you a thing or 2 about why someone might shoot at ISO 8000+. Imagine its your client and they pay you for impeccable results. Try telling them you meant to compose it better or use a faster lens and try to run around with a fixed 1.4 leg zoom but just couldn't get close enough.

No compositional skills can ever trump fast moving subjects in low light. As a photographer compositional skills are a given. Hi ISO is a field reality that light controlled shooters are ill-equipped to deal with- no offense to the countless brilliant studio or controlled lighting location shooters.

To the OP: Again, noise ninja used to be the best at noise reduction. I'm currently finding Lightroom handles it just as well.

Jan 20 13 08:09 pm Link