Author Topic: Best noise reduction program (Read 17014 times)

KB · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2014, 14:59 »

Like disorderly, I started with Neat Image back when there were not many other choices (and it was the clear choice at that time).

But I didn't like their upgrade policy at all. There were new versions (with a "discount" for current owners) for new versions of Windows, 64-bit versions, major upgrades, etc. Just got tired of having to pay so many times just to keep using their software.

A few years back I switched to Topaz' DeNoise, with free upgrades. It seems to work at least as well as Neat Image, and I appreciate and applaud that kind of upgrade policy.

dirkr · « **Reply #26 on:** January 19, 2014, 15:03 »

I'm using Dfine from Nik as well. Works very good, very easy to use selectively (e.g. only on the sky).

I often shoot with ISO up to 1600 or even 3200. And yes, they do get accepted at stock sites. When shooting wildlife you often shoot in rather low light conditions and still want a very short exposure time due to long lenses and movement of your subject. No way around high ISO, but with today's cameras that works pretty well.

JPSDK · « **Reply #27 on:** January 19, 2014, 17:53 »

Not applicable
Meaning, not relevant.

You should not spend time on noise reduction.
It is far better to get noisefree exposures, and that is possible with modern cameras, or turn your viewfinder at something else.

roede-orm · « **Reply #28 on:** January 19, 2014, 18:22 »

Don't agree. Sometimes noise is unavoidable. In summer, when the camera is warm, for example. Even long exposure may cause noise.

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** January 19, 2014, 18:30 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 19, 2014, 17:53

Not applicable
Meaning, not relevant.

You should not spend time on noise reduction.
It is far better to get noisefree exposures, and that is possible with modern cameras, or turn your viewfinder at something else.

Sorry, you shoot what you like and let me shoot what I like.
If that needs 1/1600th sec or faster, and I need 1600 or faster ISO, what is it to you if I use, or don't use, NR?
I'll send my time the way I choose.
(You are equally free to do as you wish.)

Mantis · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2014, 08:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2014, 13:12

I use ACR. As it meets my needs, I haven't tried anything that would cost even more money.

Same here.

Perry · « **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2014, 18:30

Quote from: JPSDK on January 19, 2014, 17:53
Not applicable
Meaning, not relevant.

You should not spend time on noise reduction.
It is far better to get noisefree exposures, and that is possible with modern cameras, or turn your viewfinder at something else.
Sorry, you shoot what you like and let me shoot what I like.
If that needs 1/1600th sec or faster, and I need 1600 or faster ISO, what is it to you if I use, or don't use, NR?

He said in that case you should turn your wievfinder at something else. I shoot stock mostly at 100 ISO, and very rarely over 400 ISO.

I use a combination of the things below:
- correct exposure (this is important) with raw, as light as possible without blowing out the highlights too much
- Large apertures (2-ish)
- Image stabilisator
- Studio strobes
- Using tripod (when long exposures cause noise, I just stack a few images to get rid of it)
- Shooting when there is light (not trying to shoot moving objects/people on murky winter days)
- resizing the image smaller if too much noise

etc. etc.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:36 »

Quote from: Perry on January 20, 2014, 09:23

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2014, 18:30
Quote from: JPSDK on January 19, 2014, 17:53
Not applicable
Meaning, not relevant.

You should not spend time on noise reduction.
It is far better to get noisefree exposures, and that is possible with modern cameras, or turn your viewfinder at something else.
Sorry, you shoot what you like and let me shoot what I like.
If that needs 1/1600th sec or faster, and I need 1600 or faster ISO, what is it to you if I use, or don't use, NR?

He said in that case you should turn your wievfinder at something else. I shoot stock mostly at 100 ISO, and very rarely over 400 ISO.

What right does he have to dictate what I shoot?
If I want to shoot small birds in flight, African Painted Hunting Dogs play-fighting, or other moving subjects, that's my choice, not his or yours.

Ron · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:41 »

Quote from: Perry on January 20, 2014, 09:23

Quote from: ShadySue on January 19, 2014, 18:30
Quote from: JPSDK on January 19, 2014, 17:53
Not applicable
Meaning, not relevant.

You should not spend time on noise reduction.
It is far better to get noisefree exposures, and that is possible with modern cameras, or turn your viewfinder at something else.
Sorry, you shoot what you like and let me shoot what I like.
If that needs 1/1600th sec or faster, and I need 1600 or faster ISO, what is it to you if I use, or don't use, NR?

He said in that case you should turn your wievfinder at something else. I shoot stock mostly at 100 ISO, and very rarely over 400 ISO.

I use a combination of the things below:
- correct exposure (this is important) with raw, as light as possible without blowing out the highlights too much
- Large apertures (2-ish)
- Image stabilisator
- Studio strobes
- Using tripod (when long exposures cause noise, I just stack a few images to get rid of it)
- Shooting when there is light (not trying to shoot moving objects/people on murky winter days)
- resizing the image smaller if too much noise

etc. etc.

How do you light up a lion at 300 meters with strobes? Or a bird in flight using a long exposure?

How can you even compare studio photography with wild life photography?

JPSDK · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:05 »

I didnt mean to stir people up, I was just a bit blunt, as I have a tendency to.
Of course people can photograph what they want.
But maybe it doesnt pay, for stock.
Birds? Shutterspeed? Strobes and lions. OK.

Those are all problems that can be solved. It is just a matter of expenses. Fx it is possible to follow the curlews to their summer nesting grounds and photograph them at midday north of the polar circle, and such reduce iso and shutterspeed.
You can also catch a chick, raise it, and photograph it in a studio. Same with lions, even easier, just buy one and photograph it in good light conditions, or go to the zoo and bribe it with a head from a horse.
Everything is possible, and problems can be solved.

And here comes my point, there is always a guy, somewhere out there in the competitive field, with a lion in the backyard and a good set of strobes, and who is willing to sell the photos for 25 cents..
And thats what I meant, It does not pay back, to have to go through a lot of hazzle to get a certain picture. Noise reduction is not competitive, because if you need it, your are not at the right time and place in the competitive field.

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:24 »

^^
If you raise birds in the UK, they must have a close ring fitted as soon as they hatch, by law. You'd spend more time getting rid of that in post than I do in NR.

My point is that if I'm on safari shooting animals, or shooting birds in flight at home, what benefit is there in there just sitting on my HD? Sure they may not sell hundreds or even tens of times, but they'll sell exactly 0 times from my HD.

The first thing I learned about flying birds was that my previous plan of 'it's a nice clear night, so I'll get to the hide by dawn' doesn't work. If it's clear, the shadows from the wings are really ugly, so 'light overcast' is your best bet. Flash usually isn't allowed in nature reserves, not at all in Galapagos (for example) outside the small habitations.

Other people can shoot captive animals/birds in studios or backyards; that's not my choice.

JPSDK · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:38 »

Sue, that is passion not reason.
Im only reasoning, and say it doesnt pay.
It is true, however, that the photos ( from the passion) earn better online instead of on a disk.
And I do exactly the same, migrate photographs from my passion (butterflies) to the market via photoshop.

But competitive is it not, and even worse, because I see the agencies ( with IS in the lead) promoting really lousy butterfly pictures, and press mine backwards.
I am am also a wildlife photographer, but I have found out that wildlife rarely sells, and that it is easier to photograph birds in parks and gardens than out in the wild.

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:54 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 20, 2014, 10:38

Sue, that is passion not reason.
Im only reasoning, and say it doesnt pay.

Hmmm.
I'm never going to get into the Millionaire's Club, but photos from a safari I did before I was submitting photos as stock have more than paid for the safari. Works for me. Similarly a whale-watching trip I did, though that was an iceberg which paid, not the whales.
Luckily, I'm old enough not to need to be bored.

OTOH, competition is far stronger now, and especially as iStock has chosen to undercut its exclusives' files by several factors, and submerge new files in the best match if they dare to get downloads (or views, probably), these heady days are over.

KB · « **Reply #38 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:57 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 20, 2014, 10:05

Those are all problems that can be solved. It is just a matter of expenses. Fx it is possible to follow the curlews to their summer nesting grounds and photograph them at midday north of the polar circle, and such reduce iso and shutterspeed.

<snip>

Seems it would be a lot simpler and less expensive to simply use a NR program.

JPSDK · « **Reply #39 on:** January 20, 2014, 11:37 »

Yes, indeed.
that would be far easier and less expensive.
But still it is best to stay within the competitive field and only click or photoshop when it pays back timewise.
We are talking business not passion or art.
Since we are competing against those, who do have a lion in the backyard.

The competitive edge would be found in your backyard.
For me it was swallowtails.

JPSDK · « **Reply #40 on:** January 20, 2014, 11:45 »

BTW.
There is also such a thing that noise is noise.
That means randomness in the image.
And random pixels are random. They can be camouflaged, but details are lost and gone.
And that is not a path to follow, if you can avoid it, it compares to repairing things with gaffa.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #41 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:33 »

Noiseware by Imagenomic. http://imagenomic.com/nw.aspx

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #42 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:40 »

^^^
I was beginning to think that I was the only one using it

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:49 »

I use that one, too - selectively when needed

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Best noise reduction program (Read 17014 times)

KB

dirkr

JPSDK

roede-orm

ShadySue

Mantis

Perry

ShadySue

Ron

JPSDK

ShadySue

JPSDK

ShadySue

KB

JPSDK

JPSDK

StanRohrer

Beppe Grillo

sgoodwin4813

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors