Denoise Programs

[Brownbear]

I took some photos of bears photographed at a high iso as well as being underexposed because I was adjusting for blinkies which were in the water and forgot about just exposing for the bear so I kept adjusting the exposure compensation.

Anyway this motivated me to try out a De-noise program, and I downloaded the trial for DeNik...

I watched a couple of tutorials but I wonder if their are some general guidelines on how much to de-noise in terms of contrast noise and colour noise?

It certainly works well to de-noise things but the detail is lost and the photos look kind of unnatural. And the colour seems to change..

The info I read suggested editing the photo in Lightroom as usual but not to include any sharpening or de-noising... Is this correct?

Does anyone have any links for any good tutorials on using the DeNik Denoise program?

I'd really appreciate feedback on the following edits... I have a feeling that I lost too much detail and colour with the denoise program.

Normal Edit




Denoised Edit




And an owl in flight!

Normal Edit



Denoised Edit



PS Yes, I'm still on a break from Cambridge in Colour to take time to practice my photography and learn how to edit, but I can't find any good info out there on this subject so hoping for some advice.

Thank you.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

I don't see too much noise even in the normal edits.

The de-noised bear seems to have llost most colour in water and there's a vast increase in saturation and change of hue in the owl pic.

I use Neat Image (that's a link that says how I use it - and I believe a free-trial is available)

... and yes; I do turn off/down all noise reduction and sharpening before I get the picture into Neat Image.

Cheers,

[Brownbear]

Thank you Dave.

It is not so bad in small size but full size it is very apparent.

Yes, something is funny and I know it.. .

Neat image doesn't work with Lightroom or Elements 9, and many of the denoise programs don't seem to do so..

Good to know. Thank you for the helpful link.

I see that Neat Image might work with Elements... I will check it out..

Here is the link for the programs I was looking at

http://image-noise-reduction.com/noi...tware-reviews/

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

A guideline that I use is that if the noise isn't apparent when viewed at 30% of the full-size image, I don't bother with it until such time that I'm displaying it in a printed version that the noise can be seen when viewed from an appropriate distance. Apologies if this is not the first time that I have mentioned it, but I think a lot of people are overly obsessed with noise.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Thank you. I am trying to get into stock photos and they look at absolutely everything at 100%.

I've had already had a few photos rejected for noise, and it is usually wildlife photos for which I have to use a higher iso... They have advised that if I can get rid of the noise in my photos I can submit again so I have to learn how to do this.

Christina,

A guideline that I use is that if the noise isn't apparent when viewed at 30% of the full-size image, I don't bother with it until such time that I'm displaying it in a printed version that the noise can be seen when viewed from an appropriate distance. Apologies if this is not the first time that I have mentioned it, but I think a lot of people are overly obsessed with noise.

[Mike Buckley]

That makes sense, Christina. Once a stock agency accepts an image file, they don't want to have to say, "Well, for the purpose that you'll be using the photo, you won't be able to see the noise. If you use it in a situation when the noise is apparent, we'll take the noise out of it. Of course, you'll then have to decide if the image still meets your needs."

Now that I understand that you have professional desires when attending to noise, why not go with the program that seems to have the best overall reputation for quality? I don't follow this stuff closely but I have the impression that that would probably be Noise Ninja.

Ask the stock photo agency what program they recommend.

[Brownbear]

Yes.

I will look at that program and ask. Thank you Mike, as always.

[Brev00]

Noise Ninja is now only available as part of Photo Ninja, a raw processing program. I have tried Photo Ninja, Nik Dfine, and Topaz Denoise and greatly prefer Topaz Denoise. It is precise and flexible. I find it very easy to eliminate just noise without messing up the detail. It works well inside Elements 9--that is my home program, too. Lately, I have been selecting the subject and then inverting that selection before going into Denoise. That way, the subject is completely protected from any blurring. Sometimes I do not mind some added blurring of the background but, with Denoise, I can dial in as much as I want. I find all of the Topaz plug-ins to be pretty intuitive and very helpful. There is a free trial. The set retails for more than Nik but I got a good deal on Ebay. I have Nik, too, and probably need a tutorial for Dfine because I find I lose a lot of detail with it. Photo Ninja is effective as a raw processor but cannot work as a home for plug-ins and has no editing feature. I liked the denoising feature but not more than Denoise and not enough to buy the whole enchilada.

[John 2]

..........and Topaz Denoise and greatly prefer Topaz Denoise. It is precise and flexible. I find it very easy to eliminate just noise without messing up the detail.

I can second that but they all have their strengths. Topaz is very intuitive and allows you to adjust some colours, shadows and highlights separately. Niks version provides for targeted measurement of noise and Imagenomic's offering allows the full colour range and/or the full tonal range to be targeted selectively. I wouldn't recommend you buy all three. I only have them because having started with Imagenomic, at some stage in the past, Topaz and Nik have offered a significant discount on their full suites. I still find that where Topaz doesn't have a great effect, Imagenomic will and vice versa. The other thing that I have learned is to be selective in applying noise reduction in order to reduce the inevitable detail loss in the areas that matter but all three allow you to do this. Hope this is helpful.

[DanK]

If you have a recent version of Lightroom (4 or 5), it has excellent noise reduction. I have two additional NR programs, noise ninja and nik denoise, but I rarely use either because LR generally works fine. You will have to google for instructions on how to use it well. There are lots of tutorials wall ready online.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Larry, John and Dan. I will try Topaz and check out the tutorials on noise reduction in LR.

[Shadowman]

I can second that but they all have their strengths. Topaz is very intuitive and allows you to adjust some colours, shadows and highlights separately. Niks version provides for targeted measurement of noise and Imagenomic's offering allows the full colour range and/or the full tonal range to be targeted selectively. I wouldn't recommend you buy all three. I only have them because having started with Imagenomic, at some stage in the past, Topaz and Nik have offered a significant discount on their full suites. I still find that where Topaz doesn't have a great effect, Imagenomic will and vice versa. The other thing that I have learned is to be selective in applying noise reduction in order to reduce the inevitable detail loss in the areas that matter but all three allow you to do this. Hope this is helpful.

I found mention of the Imagenomic software in one of Kelby's books. Day one of a fifteen day trial and I like it so far. Plugin or standalone is available.

[Brownbear]

Right now, I am trying the trial of Topaz and prefer it to Nik.. But so far I've only tried it out on a few images... John, have you tried Topaz and if yes how does it compare to Imagenomic for keeping detail?

Thank you.

[Manfred M]

Christina - I have the Nik Dfine plugin that came with the Nik package. It is considered to be very good, but while I have played around with it, I don't recalll having ever used it. All of the de-noise packages remove noise by gently smearing your image, so you lose sharpness.

I find that with a modern camera, when trading off noise versus sharpness, I will alway go for a sharper image. I normally have to "pixel peep" to see noise, and not view my work at a normal distance.

[pnodrog]

Hi Mike,

Thank you. I am trying to get into stock photos and they look at absolutely everything at 100%.

I've had already had a few photos rejected for noise, and it is usually wildlife photos for which I have to use a higher iso... They have advised that if I can get rid of the noise in my photos I can submit again so I have to learn how to do this.

The best method is keep the noise to a minimuim at capture not to concentrate on PP recovery methods. I do not believe in perfect out of camera but the closer you can get to it the better your results will be. Unfortunately sometimes we are just limited by the capabilities of the camera being used.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Manfred and Paul... Truly appreciated.

Manfred.. smear your photos seems like an apt description.

I've started submitting my bird photos to a couple of stock company and at full size noise is always evident in the water and blue skies, and the dark portions of birds if I don't get the exposure right or use too high an iso... And with birds it seems a high iso is always needed but it is much less evident with my Nikon D 7100 than my Nikon D80 so hopefully I will not need to use it very often. But I'm trying out the trials because I've already had a couple of requests to resubmit a couple of bird photos after denoising (from my D80).

While I agree about pixel peeping, and my photos are very lightly edited I'm trying out different denoise programs to see what works best and so if needed I will be able denoise a photo, and do it well.

Thank you.

[TerryScuba]

Hi Christina,

I've been using the Topaz products for some time, (I do have the others) but for performance I recommend Topaz.

If your new to Topaz the BEST recommendation I can suggest is to go through their tutorials, not only great but you pick up some good photo tips. These are available from www.topazlabs.com but I prefer to watch them from www.youtube.com/topazlabs where I can download them and study them later.

[Shadowman]

Right now, I am trying the trial of Topaz and prefer it to Nik.. But so far I've only tried it out on a few images... John, have you tried Topaz and if yes how does it compare to Imagenomic for keeping detail?

Thank you.

Haven't tried Topaz yet. Only others I've tried are Imagenomic's NoiseWare, Neat Image, and Kodak's Digital GEM. Of those three, Imagenomic and Kodak have the best tutorials.

[Brownbear]

Terry... yes, I'm new to Topaz. I appreciate the link to the topaz labs, and will watch them..

Thank you.

[gerryp123]

I've tried them all and Topaz DeNoise (to me) the best of the lot. New NR algorithms allow much better retention of detail. Removes noise in individual color channels, and also banding noise. Very good two-part instructional video on the web. Really shows how to use the product to its full advantage. Search in Google.

Nik Define 2 is very good -- but Topaz DeNoise is better!