I use PS reduce noise sometimes but is there any others out there any one recommends?Thanks.

I occasionally use Imagenomic Noiseware to smooth noisy night skies. I think it does a better job than PS or Lightroom noise reduction, mainly due to the large range of controls and presets.

I use Noiseware (Imagenomic).
Once you have understood how to manage well the settings it is really very powerful and gives very good results.

Another vote for Topaz DeNoise

It is not easy to say which one is better between DeNoise and Noiseware.
They surely both do a good job.

Personally I tend to prefer Noiseware because it is faster (and when you have series of images to denoise it is not negligible) and I find that it has a better enhance of details/contrast.

But probably the use experience with one of the other has a great importance in our appreciations.

If you get the exposure right and don't overprocess you should very rarely need noise reduction. When you do need it, PS is fine, especially using it in Camera Raw.

We regularly shoot at 800-1600 ISO without needing NR.

Regularly at 800-1600 ISO ?? For stock?
Can You let us know which camera do You have?

I used Neat image years ago and liked it, however iStock did not, I was overdoing it I can now see in hindsight.  I then started using gauzian blur in Elements selectively and it worked very well on skies, also passed inspection at IS.  Lately I have used Lightroom selectively.  I must add that I don't shoot "noisy" photos for stock very often, just for my own fun so I can do what I like. 

Regularly at 800-1600 ISO ?? For stock?
Can You let us know which camera do You have?

Yes, for stock. Not for the micros, though, that sort of work mostly goes to Alamy or Age.

The 5D2 is OK at 800 and the Panasonic GH2 can manage 1600 on the right subject. The main thing is to avoid having to open shadows. Blue skies can be a problem on the Canon, and a little NR on just the red channel can be helpful.

When I shoot with my D700 I don't need noise reduction but if I'm out at night and hand-holding with my D5100 or Coolpix P7000 (a point and shoot that shoots RAW), sometimes I need it and I've found that in most cases the Nik Dfine filter works best as long as I throttle it back from 100%.

Noise reduction in LR works well too though since I'm shooting with Nikons I find that the Nik filters seem to work a bit better, especially if I'm dealing with skies. I keep sharpening and NR at 0 in LR and in camera, and find that if a photo needs NR it's best to do that first in Define, followed by a slight tweak on a luminosity layer with Nik RAW pre-sharpener.

I use a tripod often but if I'm walking around somewhere at night, I don't always have one along, and as I tend to carry one of my lighter cameras rather than my heavy D700 if I'll be out for hours, I know I'll need to do a little post to deal with nighttime noise.

I used to add the Nik polarizing filters to my skies to make them even bluer, but found that upped the noise substantially as does any graduated filter used in post, so I've gone back to using them on camera. Getting it right from the start is always best, but the huge ISO range of today's cameras gives you a chance to shoot so much even under less than ideal situations, and when the situation is less than ideal, finding good NR software can really save the day.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I love all the Nik filters, some of which I've been using since 2007 along with Nikon NX2 - which was my go-to software until Google sent me the Nik filters for PS. If you haven't tried out the Nik filters I'd definitely suggest you check them out. I think the entire range can be purchased now for $150.  Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex Pro are both really fun to work with and give you some amazing options.

I never shoot more than iso 400 on X-E2 and 5D3. It's a waste of time and energy for "mass production stuff" like stock photography. I do carry Gorilla pod though. Takes a bit more time to shoot saves a lot of time on post.

If you ever need NR LR is already good especially with masking built in now.

Dfine from NIK Software, beacause they have this really good U-Point technology, so I can reduce noise exactly where it is necessary (if it is ever necessary).

It's called a tripod and ISO 100 setting- now noise is gone 

Try telling that to any moving subject.

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

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.

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

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

Same here.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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