Noise Ninja samples

[CaptainTom]

Every now and again there are discussions here about noise reduction software.
I thought I'd do a quick and unscientific test.

Original photo is designed to simulate worst case scenario with underexposed, blown highlights, etc. Canon 30D ISO 100.
The others should be self explanatory. ISO 3200, extreme crop, with and without NN.

[Hogleg 44]

Cool Tom. It would like to see how Neat Image would handle the image, just to see how the two programs compare. It appears to be a toss up which program is best. It's probably just about like it is with raw converters though. No one program is best for all images.

[HeatherLou]

I use Noiseware and it does a pretty good job too :)

[CaptainTom]

I'm not endorsing any particular software because NN is the only one I've used so far.
It took me about 5 minutes to shoot, and post this test. If you use another program, why not try a similar test and let's see what it looks like. I can also send the original and you can run it through your software.

[HeatherLou]

Oh me either, I dont care what brand it is as long as it works! I love the idea of a test on that one too and see how they compare, so send it to me and I will see what we come up with. However, I'm at ickywork at the moment but can post some when i get home!

[Glassman]

Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to post...I use NN myself sometimes

[johnastovall]

Did you just use the noise data from the chair or have it profile the whole image? I find I get better results when I have it profile the complete image.

[iCe]

Every now and again there are discussions here about noise reduction software.
I thought I'd do a quick and unscientific test.

Original photo is designed to simulate worst case scenario with underexposed, blown highlights, etc. Canon 30D ISO 100.
The others should be self explanatory. ISO 3200, extreme crop, with and without NN.

Sometimes you can click the second tab and slide the contrast up to around 14 and sharpening up to around 82 - 100 % and it really helps the image... sometimes

[Sonny]

This is my little attempt. No PP other than white balance. Morgan was in a dark room with a desk lamp shining down on her face .

original image-ISO3200, 1/60, Auto WB, f/4.5, spot meter, RAW.


NN-full image-Mark II n custom profile.


Noiseware-full image-default settings


original 100% crop


NN-100% crop-Mark II n custom profile.


Noiseware-100% crop-default settings.

[CaptainTom]

Sonny
Thanks for the comparisons.

In your examples, I like the noiseware results better than NN.
I seems Noiseware didn't flatten the image as much as NN.

Anybody else got something they can show us ?

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Sonny
Thanks for the comparisons.

In your examples, I like the noiseware results better than NN.
I seems Noiseware didn't flatten the image as much as NN.

Anybody else got something they can show us ?

Thanks Tom. Just like you stated this test was totally unscientific. There are many options in both programs that can be tweaked to produce varied results.

This is just MY OPINION AND THIS IS WHAT WORKS FOR ME (had to emphasis this before I got the regular argumentative members barkin). I am pleased with the Noiseware results better than NN overall.

[Arnor]

I compared the trial version of NN and Noiseware and I opted for Noiseware and I've been very happy with it. I think it's probably a toss up between the two, but for me the nw was somehow easier to use - i.e. it just suited me better. I'm constantly amazed at how well it works with photos without loss of detail... I'm not saying NW is better than NN, it just suited me better:)

Best regards,

[Z_Ghost]

Thanks for posting this up, I have been needing to get a program to use on my night shots.

[arlon]

I like the softening affect it has in the portrait but I it really "smears" a lot of detail in the room photo (see the broom). I guess it's better than nothing for some scenarios but it surely doesn't look like a "fix all". If the photo was something rich in detail I think I'd prefer to live it with the noise or just not show it anywhere near full size. Actually I guess if I could only shoot at 3600 iso, I'd go to the movies or something instead. Once the detail is lost, no smoothing program is ever going to get it back.

Tom, do you have a "healed" copy at the same scale as the original (uncropped)? I'm curious what the detail looks like at a size I might post it online at. I never make 2ftx3ft paper prints so full size crops don't mean as much for me but I sure would like to see it at the same scale as the first shot..

[Arnor]

Hi Arlon,

Originally Posted by arlon

I like the softening affect it has in the portrait but I it really "smears" a lot of detail in the room photo (see the broom). I guess it's better than nothing for some scenarios but it surely doesn't look like a "fix all". If the photo was something rich in detail I think I'd prefer to live it with the noise or just not show it anywhere near full size.

Nothing dictates that you have to apply the noise reduction to the whole image. With masking you can control exactly how much and where you let the noise reduction layer show. I find it works best on areas that are blurred/out of focus to start with and don't have detail, but have a lot of chromatic noise, such as flower background that's completely out of focus. I run the nw on it and then I mask out the flower or whatever the subject is, so that there is no noise reduction applied.

Best regards,