| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2004 06:17:32 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 06:21:15 PM · #27 |
o elaborate (for those whom can't fathom to understand 1,2,3)
I would disagree with bobster on his quote
"Neat Image only makes your images look plasticly if you sample an area with detail. If you use your camera's profile, or sample a completely flat area, you should only remove noise."
I don't find Neat Image (or any other software) to be that precise. If there were such a thing it would probably outsell Photoshop.
I also strongly disagree that it doesn't reduce detail - even minimal usage reduces detail (although minimal)
It really depends on the scene which your using it on - it's range of tones and it's range of colors. Some work better than others. Likewise the effect is better on some than in others.
However, my personal dislike for over neat imaged photos isn't shared by everyone - likewise a lot of people detest grain and noise in their photographs.
Neither is right or wrong, but I think on DPC we are (slowly) seeing a backlash against neat imaged photographs. Pretty much the same as we did with stock type photos.
Funnily enough I was reading some of my old comments a hour ago and quite a few times I said 'ouch needs some neat image' so one could always call Me hypocrite ;) I also use it for some of my DPC submissions because over time I have learned what is liked and how to score 6's.
Now I prefer to see textures and detail, even at the expense of grain, but that doesn't means you can't use NI - all it means is not to use it too much otherwise you can get carried away and whilst it looks clean and 'perfect' you will loose all your detail and emotion from your image.
To sum it up in a 'less boring way' - some boys like their girls plastered in make-up like hookers, others prefer their girls plain and simple and others like a little.
Message edited by author 2004-10-03 18:21:38. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 06:23:16 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by yaksos:
Hey Jonpink...are you always this boring mate!! or is this arrogance a culture thing????? Your bleeding one two three corrective and void of any emotion comments drive me mad..Are you a Virgo or something??? |
You should check my profile and previous forum posts - this is probably my least arrogant posting.
:D <- Me laughing = Emotion |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 06:51:35 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
NeatImage only makes your images look plasticky if you sample an area with detail. If you use your camera's profile, or sample a completely flat area, you should only remove noise. |
great stuff everyone.
Bob can you elablourae here a bit please?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2004 07:13:31 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
NeatImage only makes your images look plasticky if you sample an area with detail. If you use your camera's profile, or sample a completely flat area, you should only remove noise. |
great stuff everyone.
Bob can you elablourae here a bit please? |
Well, it's really a matter of taste, but I think I'll have to agree to disagree with Jon. Used properly, NeatImage shouldn't remove any detail whatsoever, and I've used it in this way plenty of times on my photos. However, on DPChallenge, I am in the habit of overusing it a tad... but I think it's easier to overcompensate when using a camera with a relatively noisy small sensor like that on My FZ10. When I get a DSRL, I'll be much happier to cut back on the NeatImage. I think I'm also a bit lazy to put it in a seperate layer and reduce the opacity... or do things like apply it to a luminescence layer only.
For those not familiar with NeatImage, the way it should work is it will recognise the characteristic noise patterns created by your particular sensor, and only remove that noise. I think it can also work better on some sensors than other. It can remove noise effortlessly from my FZ10, but I had to really struggle to remove noise from my OptioS shots. You can also use NeatImage on skin textures to remove blemishes, but if this overdone it can make the skin look plasticky. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 07:19:52 PM · #31 |
| I think it's funny though when people get so used to Neat Image that they assume everyone is using it. I got a comment about a certain part of a picture being too neatimaged, and I didn't even use Neat Image on it. Oh well. You get all sort of comments. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 07:43:30 PM · #32 |
| I mostly comment on to much ni when the picture looks ok at first, my eyes are going around in the pattern the photographer laid out and then, boom, there's an area that used to have details but is now just a blob. It looks as if the picture is in focus except it looks like a big water drop has been placed on the lens and that area is all unfocused. But then, everyone has the right to do whatever they want with their pictures. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 07:51:57 PM · #33 |
| If you're using a Mac, there's is also ISOX Pro from fredmiranda.com (it will cost you though). You can also use various filters of PhotoShop such as gaussian blur, smart blur, despeckle, dust and scrathes, median etc. in various combinations. You just have to hit the right combination by trial and error. But NeatImage usually does the trick ... and it's free. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 08:19:05 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by CODE:
Originally posted by Rooster:
yep I use neat image. The iso was very high unfortunately, something like 1600. Do you think that NI will remove it all? Any function settings for NI that you cool cats suggest? I.e. remove all noise, etc... |
Neat Image has profiles for the Digital Rebel at different ISO Levels, you can download them at their site (Here's the link) |
what does 'h' represents is iso when in manual mode? that is what the cam setting was at. Is that simulated 3200 or what? |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 08:21:04 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Originally posted by CODE:
Originally posted by Rooster:
yep I use neat image. The iso was very high unfortunately, something like 1600. Do you think that NI will remove it all? Any function settings for NI that you cool cats suggest? I.e. remove all noise, etc... |
Neat Image has profiles for the Digital Rebel at different ISO Levels, you can download them at their site (Here's the link) |
what does 'h' represents is iso when in manual mode? that is what the cam setting was at. Is that simulated 3200 or what? |
H stands for High and is ISO 3200. Expect a lot of noise at that setting.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-10-03 20:21:28.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2004 09:03:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I think it's funny though when people get so used to Neat Image that they assume everyone is using it. |
LOL- I've used Noise Ninja once in 42 challenges, yet I've seen that "too much NI" comment several times. The assumptions can be funny. My favorite was the commenter who said I obviously used way too much makeup on my model. I don't put makeup on three-year-olds.
Rooster- I don't think you'll be able to rescue ISO 3200 grain no matter what software you use. If it was a still life, you could stack multiple exposures to eliminate the grain, but that wouldn't be legal for challenges. There's another way that works like magic, which we discussed yesterday at the NYC get-together. You didn't miss it, did you? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 09:27:25 PM · #37 |
I don't know if this is a standard way to remove really bad grain using Photoshop, but when I have a big area with noticeable grain (such as a sky or a dark section of the photo) here's what I do:
1. Select just the area with the noticeable grain, feathering the selection by a few pixels.
2. Create a new layer with that selection called "Noise."
3. Duplicate that layer, calling it "Noise 2."
4. On the "Noise" layer, clean up the selection using either Gaussian Blur, Despeckle, or Dust and Scratches, depending on the amount of noise. I just love that Gaussian Blur. :-)
5. Since Gaussian Blur bleeds the selection into the surrounding area, I then load the untouched "Noise 2" layer as a selection (command- or control-click on the layer).
6. Select the inverse to have only the empty pixels selected, then click on the "Noise" layer and click delete to get rid of any bleeding into the surrounding pixels.
7. Flatten the image and the result should be a pretty clean, noise-free image without any of the non-noisy areas being blurred or smoothed at all. You might need to manually blur any remaining noise in the final image.
I've used this technique to restore old photos and to clean up dark shots taken at high ISO with pretty good results. Hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
10/03/2004 09:32:36 PM · #38 |
The new Paint Shop (PSP 9) has a digital noise reduction filter. Anyone know anything about it? I have tried PSP 9, but haven't tried the filter.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2004 10:41:38 PM · #39 |
Are you sure it is necessary? Does it impact the image when resized for the web/screen? Does it show up in print? The 'grain' seems to disappear in these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 01:51:09 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Hey Everyone!
I messed up & forgot to change the iso b4 taking shots & now all my shots are stupid grainy. Any tips on removing it would be GREATLY appreciated.
A reshoot at this point would be hard so any tips besides reshooting please.
thanks in advance! |
I like NeatImage somewhat, but I usually try other things first. Here are a few, and they work best with large files (like files the size for printing: 8 x 10 @ 300 dpi or so.
First, Photoshop already has some noise reduction filters, and they work okay, kind of:
1. Dust & Scratches filter. This filter does smooth out strange, pixelly, noisy images. Even at the large dpi, I only use this at a 1 - 3 pixel radius. The key with this tool is to overdo it just a little, then go to the Fade tool in the Edit menu and fade its strength until it looks good.
2. Median: similar to Dust & Scratches, but you can have harder edges to things. Again: best when used with the Fade tool.
3. Smart Blur: fiddle with it until it looks good.
4. Gaussian blur: best when used with non-detail areas (like a sky), especially if you can select the area needing cleaning (so not good for Basic challenges). After selecting the area, I usually use the Feather tool in the Selection menu so I don't have weird edges.
5. You can be creative, too. I often use the Crosshatch filter to fix a pixelly image. I rarely have the stroke length more than 12, and the hardness of the edge is good to have pretty low too. This tool is great because it really does smooth out things nicely. Again, using the Fade tool is invaluable.
6. I've also used things like the Watercolor filter, then Faded it, so depending on your image, you can choose a lot of different cleaning techniques.
Hope that's helpful!
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 02:01:57 AM · #41 |
Have to throw in my 2 cents...
Grain is good :) Don't fear the grain... Use the grain!
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 02:05:25 AM · #42 |
| Happy Noise Ninja user here. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 03:37:47 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
it ... reduce[s] detail - even minimal usage reduces detail (although minimal) |
I completely agree with Jon here. On a technical level I think it's impossible to remove noise without detail using an algorithm arbitrarily across the whole image.
Removing Noise => Removing Detail |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 03:55:45 AM · #44 |
According to the info on their site, neatimage should be used as first step in the postprocessing. Any other editing, like levels or sharpening, can be noise reduction less effective.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 12:38:20 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by CODE:
Originally posted by Rooster:
yep I use neat image. The iso was very high unfortunately, something like 1600. Do you think that NI will remove it all? Any function settings for NI that you cool cats suggest? I.e. remove all noise, etc... |
Neat Image has profiles for the Digital Rebel at different ISO Levels, you can download them at their site (Here's the link) |
how does it work? Where do I put the files once I unzip 'em?
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 01:03:59 PM · #46 |
Hi there,
Try this, it has worked for me in the past.
1. change colour mode to LAB COLOUR in Image Menu.
2. Look at your channels palette you will see they are now in light levels instead of RGB. select 'a' channel and choose Gaussian Blur filter (select just enough to remove the grain, around 2-3 pixels usually).
3. now choose 'b' channel and re-apply the blur (Control+F).
4. Go back to the Image menu and change back to RGB mode. Your done, this usually removes a lot of noise, give it a try.
This does work!!!! |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 01:08:17 PM · #47 |
If the noise is primarily color noise then convert the image mode to Lab Color (in PS: Image>mode>lab color) then bring up the 'channels' window.
Use gaussian blur to substantially blur the 'a' and 'b' channels then convert the mode back to RGB (or CYMK) before saving. This method blurs only color information and does not affect luminance detail.
In addition, sometimes the noise is primarily in only one color channel. Use the 'channels' window to look at each color (RGB or CYMK modes) and use gaussian blur to reduce noise in only that channel.
The blurred colors do not seem to seriously affect the quality of the image, that is, it's aesthetics are well preserved.
edit: lovespuds beat me to it!
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 13:10:13. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 01:21:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
Hi there,
Try this, it has worked for me in the past.
1. change colour mode to LAB COLOUR in Image Menu.
2. Look at your channels palette you will see they are now in light levels instead of RGB. select 'a' channel and choose Gaussian Blur filter (select just enough to remove the grain, around 2-3 pixels usually).
3. now choose 'b' channel and re-apply the blur (Control+F).
4. Go back to the Image menu and change back to RGB mode. Your done, this usually removes a lot of noise, give it a try.
This does work!!!! |
The 'L' channel will likely need to be sharpened slightly before going on. If you stay in Lab mode it can be done later, but then all other adjustments are made with an extra soft image -- less easy to see the result of the changes and more likely for the blur to bleed into the 'L' channel.
This isn't the sharpening normally done later, it is just to protect details in the 'L' channel from being overly affected by the softness of the 'a' and 'b' channels. An edge mask may work better (depends on image) and you will likely want to protect the extremes (highlights and shadows) with a graduated 'Blend if grey' in the 'Layer Style' dialog.
David
/edit: can't type today.
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 13:23:29. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 01:25:58 PM · #49 |
To get rid of grain, simply buy a chicken.
Rooster...you of all people should know this.
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 13:26:27. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 01:27:02 PM · #50 |
I used it on pics taken on film and neg scanned to digital.
I created own profile using image best suited to that (lots of large blocks of one colour, no detail) and then saved that.
I then created a filter thingy that allowed me to only apply the profile at 50% strength or so.
That ensured i didn't lose detail in whiskers, grass etc.
And I recently learned, when selling FloYd on neatimage, that people have shared profiles created for various cameras at various ISOs and these can be downloaded. Didn't even know that.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:20:31 PM EDT.
