Topaz DeNoise updated

[arith]

DeNoise4 is out and claims to make an 1600iso look like 100iso. I've had a quick go on it using medium noise for RAW file setting but haven't read the instructions yet.

What do you think?




http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/?ut...paign=denoise4

This is a free upgrade if you already have DeNoise I like free

[Colin Southern]

To be honest Steve, it's left the image far too soft for my taste Unfortunately, sharpness and noise reduction are a bit of a see-saw; the more you apply of one, the less you get of the other.

[arith]

Yes it does a bit, but it is an extreme example and I've yet to learn what the sliders do. I'll have a read a bit later.

[arith]

With a bit of practice Not easy is it but this is a 400iso very underexposed image that was taken last year just for checking out noise.



I forgot to mention they are not sharpened.

[Steaphany]

Looks like it has potential. I'll have to give it a try with images from my SD14.

[arith]

Yes it has potential Steaphany; especially if you use DeNoise to do the hard stuff then you can use another application with a brush to do the rest, such as the sky in this. But you wouldn't ever have such a noisy image as this.

[Steaphany]

Steve,

I enjoy the challenge of low light and night photography, but this is a weak area for the SD14 with it's Foveon imager. So much so, that it's what motivated me to get a Sigma SA-9 35mm film camera, chosen so my lens collection would be compatible with both camera bodies.

I know of several images that I have on disk which make your image here look clean.

[arith]

A film camera, that's a different game altogether. The reason I stopped taking photo's shortly after leaving school was mainly because I didn't have access to a dark room and high street processors were forever throwing my films away because they said they were too dark. The only type of shot I used to take was night shots and of course they were dark.
Best of luck Steaphany, I prefer digital over film because it is a lot easier.

[Steaphany]

I do hope this does not reignite the digital versus film debate.

I've done B&W and Color film processing back in the 1970's, so going back to that is a small step for me. (I still have most of my original equipment) As far as which technology, film or digital, I choose for a particular shot (Which is why I chose to stay with Sigma's system), I'm not after easy, I'll choose what ever will capture the image I'm after. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, just as there are strengths and weaknesses to each digital camera system and their underlying technologies. The key to successful photography is finding the technology that provides the capabilities you need and enduring the headaches that are bundled with it.

Getting back on the topic of noise, I have and use Topaz Denoise now, just haven't bothered with the upgrade yet. The best use of Denoise for me is cleaning up normally lit day shots where shadows end up being noisier than the lighter areas. The over all image stays clear and isn't softened, while making smooth surfaces in shadow look clean. Low light and night photography are still a challenge. Shooting those with film won't eliminate the noise issue, but once the film is digitally scanned, it should be easier to manage than what I get digitally.

If you have the ability to play with a Sigma X3F file, I can send you one that I have never been able to satisfactorally process so you could see what I get faced with.

[arith]

If ACR can open it I can do something with it. cheers