MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Noise Reduction Software?  (Read 9736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 22, 2006, 11:39 »
0
I just had a bunch of photos rejected at ShutterStock because of 'Noise'.  I hear this is a common problem at ShutterStock, and since I want to be included in their database I'm willing to jump through the hoops. 

What are some of the good noise reduction software?  These particular photos I hadn't thought had noise, so I didn't even use Photoshop's noise filter -- how do the 'professional' noise filters compare to the Photoshop noise filter that comes with the program? 

Thanks!


« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2006, 12:07 »
0
NeatImage -  but I don't use it anymore because it softens the images.  I found out that if I shoot at 100 with a tripod, the pictures remain sharp and are not rejected.

« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2006, 12:27 »
0
I use NoiseWare community edition

« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2006, 12:46 »
0
I use a very light touch with Nikon Capture NX, on very rare occasions.

I think you have to be careful with noise reduction software. Overdoing it degrades the image. Far better to try to shoot noise-free images - keep the ISO down as low as possible, go easy on the polarising filter, that sort of thing.

« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2006, 13:30 »
0
I hear so many people state that they are against using noise reduction because it "degrades the image".  But this can be said about any type of digital editing.  Saturating an image too much can "degrade" it.  Sharpening an image too much can "degrade" it.  Compressing an image too much can "degrade" it.  Basically anything that you do to alter an image can be done in excess.

If you guys are having problems with degrading your image when you run noise reduction, then you need to learn how to use it.  If used properly, noise reduction will remove the "grain" but keep the details.

As per the OP's original question: Noise Ninja and Neat Image are the two biggest names in the industry.

« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2006, 13:34 »
0
You might want to look at your photos, and see where the noise occurs.  Shooting at as low an ISO as possible helps.  Also, proper exposure can help a lot too.  A lot of times the noise may be limited to underexposed or shadowy areas.  If you have noise occuring only in small/isolated spots, with little detail (e.g. in shadow areas), you can also try using the smudge tool to get rid of the noise.  That way you don't risk loss of detail to the rest of your photo.

« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2006, 14:21 »
0
I use Noise Ninja on it's own layer and at the lowest level that will take off the noise toward the edges.  After, I manually mask the parts of the photo that didn't need the noise reduction.  It's not a time consuming as it may sound.  I also do the same with sharpening, if at all.  I'll select the main subject or parts of the photo and then only shapen them using a mask.  I'll also lower the opacity on the sharpened layer if necessary.  Whatever combo works best for a particular photo.  So far so good.

« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2006, 14:34 »
0
I hear so many people state that they are against using noise reduction ...

If you guys are having problems with degrading your image when you run noise reduction, then you need to learn how to use it.


Where did I say I was against it?

And where did I say I was having a problem with it?

All I did was give a little bit of friendly advice. Possibly it was not needed. In that case, my sincere apologies. But the original post did say, "What are some of the good noise reduction software?" which sounded a little like someone who was inexperienced in this field, and I was trying to help out.

Use it, yeah. But whatever program you use, take it easy. And, if possible, try to avoid using it at all. That's all I was saying. And, as you point out, that's valid advice for any type of post-processing.

"Shoot like there's no Photoshop" as someone much more experienced than me says.

« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2006, 14:50 »
0
Bateleur:

I was not replying to your post specifically, but to the thread in general (and to others that I have seen like it in the past).  Sorry if it came off like that.

« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2006, 15:06 »
0
NeatImage -  but I don't use it anymore because it softens the images.  I found out that if I shoot at 100 with a tripod, the pictures remain sharp and are not rejected.

I am inexperienced where shooting settings are concerned (frankly, they overwhelm me).  When you say 100 -- that is in regards to the ISO, correct?  Are there any negative results to shooting at that low a setting?  If so what should I look out for?

Unfortunately I can't use a tripod -- I need to move around way to much.

« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2006, 15:45 »
0

I am inexperienced where shooting settings are concerned (frankly, they overwhelm me).  When you say 100 -- that is in regards to the ISO, correct?  Are there any negative results to shooting at that low a setting?  If so what should I look out for?

Unfortunately I can't use a tripod -- I need to move around way to much.

I think there are trade-offs between all the camera settings.  Ideally, I would like to be able to shoot at ISO 100, 1/125 or 1/250 (I'm a shakey guy), and f/8 for everyday things (unless looking for specific effects).  Not always the case based on lighting, etc. 

« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2006, 15:47 »
0
Bateleur:

I was not replying to your post specifically, but to the thread in general (and to others that I have seen like it in the past).  Sorry if it came off like that.


Okay ... apologies. As you quoted directly from my post, and then went on to say '... if you guys are having difficulty ...' I took it that you were. But no problem.

« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2006, 15:51 »
0

 When you say 100 -- that is in regards to the ISO, correct?  Are there any negative results to shooting at that low a setting?  If so what should I look out for?

The negative result is that the sensitivity to light is reduced at ISO100, so you generally have to use a lower shutter speed/wider aperture (or both).

Lower shutter speeds can lead to blurry images (camera shake), and most lenses, whatever their quality, perform best at mid-apertures (e.g. f8).

As Fred says, it's basically a trade-off.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2006, 15:54 by Bateleur »

« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2006, 16:14 »
0
Rachell, yes, 100 ISO.

Just to clarify too, I am not against noise reduction programs.  When SS started to apply the almost zero-tolerance for noise in Spring time, I started to have much more rejections, so I bought NeatImage to solve this very frustrating problem.  But I prefer to shoot pictures with 100 ISO as much as I can for low noise level.  The pictures are accepted now, which is a relief.

If you cannot use a tripod easily, just put your camera against a post or a ramp, or something, to avoid the softness/blurriness, which could also be seen by the approvers as a result of too much application of a noise reduction software.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2006, 10:32 by berryspun »

« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2006, 08:02 »
0
The discussion about camera settings has been moved here.

http://microstockgroup.com/forum/index.php?topic=537.new#new

« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2011, 13:49 »
0
I use Noiseware Professional from Imagenomic. I find it quite good, it 'recognises' skin tones where people are, and had various settings for both colour and luma noise which you can edit as a cr2 or nef file in photoshop.

Lots of good suggestions already on how to avoid noise..

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2011, 14:04 »
0
Holy 2006 Batman!


« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2011, 14:41 »
0
You might want to look at your photos, and see where the noise occurs.  Shooting at as low an ISO as possible helps.  Also, proper exposure can help a lot too.  A lot of times the noise may be limited to underexposed or shadowy areas.  If you have noise occuring only in small/isolated spots, with little detail (e.g. in shadow areas), you can also try using the smudge tool to get rid of the noise.  That way you don't risk loss of detail to the rest of your photo.

I used NeatImage when I started but found what others have said...makes the whole image soft. I now use the method keefo uses, above. Chances are only part of your image is noisy (dark areas) so I am selective about where I get rid of noise.

« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2011, 14:47 »
0
most of the n/ware progs do that... I use this prog because its somewhat 'intelligent' and doesnt crucify detail unnecessarily. Its also very customizable, but since I shoot at iso50 I hardly ever need to use it

« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2011, 14:57 »
0
Holy 2006 Batman!

Dang, SOB, sucked in again. Doh!

« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2011, 15:04 »
0
I use Noise Ninja. It's used for almost every shot I take. You can select which part of the image needs noise reduction and how much and add a bit of USM sharpening too. Many of my shots are taken with ISO 200 which really require noise reduction to be accepted. Noise Ninja does the job for me.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5069 Views
Last post October 12, 2007, 22:55
by digiology
5 Replies
4048 Views
Last post December 15, 2007, 18:31
by takestock
15 Replies
5781 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 16:30
by CD123
43 Replies
11468 Views
Last post January 21, 2014, 13:49
by sgoodwin4813
8 Replies
4778 Views
Last post July 12, 2018, 02:23
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle