Noise software

[jordan101]

hey, what are some good free noise software programs. i've never really been one for post proseesing but now that im starting to sell my photos i need to start this. thanks

[Damo77]

Have you done a search on this forum? These programs are discussed frequently.

[Radtech1]

Jordan,

Ignore Damo77, he obviously hasn't read our rules:

4. (The "don't be a jerk" language)...

If you know an answer to a question either answer it or say nothing. Giving newbies blunt answers like "search the forum" is not allowed - please use the typing effort to giving the answer instead. Or just give the link to that post you wished the newbie should have searched for. Respect newbies - you were a newbie once.

As to your question there are three big programs on the noise reduction front. NoiseWare, Noise Ninja, and Neat Image.

My personal preference has been NoiseWare. The Community (free) edition can be found HERE. (http://www.imagenomic.com/nwsa.aspx) I will admit that I have never used Noise Ninja, and it has been a long time since I used Neat Image. The reason for liking NoiseWare over N.I. is speed. At the time, NoiseWare was substantially faster, taking only 8 to 10 seconds verses one or two minutes for processing. At the time, Noise Ninja was described by those who used it as a being about the same speed as Neat Image, which is why I never tried it. They may have sped up in subsequent versions (perhaps someone else will answer with info on the "state of the art" for them.)

The free version of NoiseWare is NOT a Photoshop plug in, rather a stand alone application. I believe this is true for N.N. and N.I. as well. Technically, by saving a jpg, removing the noise and re-saving it, you could be introducing artifacts, but I have never seen any evidence of that. The only remaining drawback of a stand alone program is the need to take the shot out of Photoshop. 'Tis a bit of a hassle. I recommend the Standard edition. Fifty bucks - what's that these days anyways? Pizza and beer for two, right? So splurge.

Rad

[Damo77]

Whoa! That's a bit harsh. I don't think it's irrelevant to ask if a search had been performed.

[Uhland]

Whoa! That's a bit harsh. I don't think it's irrelevant to ask if a search had been performed.
I agree being how the OP has under 100 posts.
He/She may not be familiar with the handy dandy search.

Now if the poster had 500+ posts then thats another story.


Then again some people do search and can not find the info.
I've been there. Im sure we all have.

[Damo77]

Apologies if I offended anyone.

Jordan, I think noise is less of a problem than any of us think.

Because we stare at photos all day, we notice every little flaw and imperfection in our images. But the paying public don't worry about things like noise anywhere near as much as we do!!

I've rarely found it necessary to remove noise from photos, even very high ISO ones. I just take special care not to exaggerate the noise when I sharpen. Kind of like "don't poke a sleeping tiger" or words to that effect.

[aubie7]

I use Neat Image. It has worked really well for all my sports pics.

[jasonleehl]

I use the community version of Noiseware and is loving it!

[HyperYagami]

I tend to like Noiseware more than NeatImage for some reason that I can't explain (I have tried both).

[Broadway53]

I made a trip to Antelope Canyon a couple years ago and loved the tour given by the Navajo guide. Unfortunately, we missed the small window of opportunity for prime sunlight at high noon so all my shots were noisey. I was able to salvage almost all the shots using Noiseware and love the results. For a free software program you can't go wrong.

[agedbriar]

I use Noiseware and lately I apply it after sharpening, as the last step. It does a good job in preserving details.

I started with the free (called Community) edition, but if I remember well it wouldn't read or save in TIFF. (I was following the rule that NR should be done first, at that time). Whether it was for that or some other deficiency, I eventually bought the regular standalone version. I do not need to use it very often, so doing the noise reduction outside my editor is not such a drawback to me and the price is considerably lower than the plugin version.

[Epix]

I use Noiseware. Works well.

[poloman]

A quick note....
If you make sure you do not underexpose at high ISO you will assure that you have as little noise as possible.

[johnthebaptist]

I just downloaded noiseware and tried it on an air show photo - WOW! what a difference it makes. Highly recommended on first impression.

[Shooting]

I use Noiseware Pro but I do it before sharpening.
Sharpening is the last thing I do to an image..if you sharpen first then all your other adjustments or things you do can ruin the sharpness and make it soft again.

[TaCo]

I use Noiseware Pro but I do it before sharpening.
Sharpening is the last thing I do to an image..if you sharpen first then all your other adjustments or things you do can ruin the sharpness and make it soft again.

I agree... I watched a video on this subject. You don't want to sharpen noise... So you use noise reduction first and then sharpen last.

Watching the video doesn't make me an expert, but it did make sense and they showed a comparison between the two.

I use Neat Image. No reason, just have never tried the others.

RH

[gcogger]

I did some experiments of my own using Noiseware Pro. I was surprised how little difference there was between <sharpen then reduce noise> and <reduce noise then sharpen>. It is, of course, important to ensure that the images compared end up with similar levels of sharpness after all the processing has been done.
In my case, I ended up with marginally better images if I did the sharpening first. I guess this makes it easier for the noise reduction software to identify the noise, as it makes it more obvious.
To be honest, the question is only relevant for people who own the noise reduction software. These people are better off doing their own tests rather than relying on someone else's opinion. So don't listen to me - try it yourself and see which way works best for you :)

[Jason77]

I agree... I watched a video on this subject...

do you have a link for that video?

[sam walker]

I use vicman Jpeg noise free software A quality program from a Russian named Victor in Moscow.
Sam

[agedbriar]

In my case, I ended up with marginally better images if I did the sharpening first. I guess this makes it easier for the noise reduction software to identify the noise, as it makes it more obvious.




My own experience exactly, and same deduction.

When I did it for the first time (aware that I was going against the rule), I was amazed at seeing that not even the finest detail was lost - looking slightly sharper after noise reduction, actually.

I'm rather conservative with the reduction amount settings in Noiseware, though.

[Kent Clark]

If anyone does video Neat Image makes noise reduction software for that too. I had some old home movies transferred to minDV. The noise was really disappointing. Neat Image for video did a fantastic job of removing it without making the picture look fake. On a quad core processor with 4 gb of RAM it does the noise reduction in almost real time.

[gcogger]

My own experience exactly, and same deduction.

When I did it for the first time (aware that I was going against the rule), I was amazed at seeing that not even the finest detail was lost - looking slightly sharper after noise reduction, actually.

I'm rather conservative with the reduction amount settings in Noiseware, though.

That may be the key - I'm pretty conservative with my Noiseware settings too.

[Az2Africa]

I use the Nik Define2 plugin or Photoshop. I works well for me. You can see it here. http://www.niksoftware.com/dfine/usa/entry.php

[agedbriar]

That may be the key - I'm pretty conservative with my Noiseware settings too.



In my case that would mean striving to retain the exact small amount of luminance noise which will be barely visible by close inspection of an A4 print, but not from normal viewing distance. So as not to get plasticy faces or flattened images.

To be able to dose noise reduction with precision, applying it after sharpening helps enormously. If you do NR first, you never know how far it will be revealed again by sharpening. Unless you reduce noise all the way down to zero, of course, but that will usually ruin the image.

[1downfall]

I am glad I found this thread. I just learned a bit about applying sharpening after NR. are there any books or guides that have these types of hints or tips in them?

[Bubble]

another vote for NoiseWare. Here are some sample of how the software works. Very easy to use and you will love the result. The best $69.95 i ever spend. It just interegrate with CS3

Original:

http://www.aphanphoto.com/sample/s1.jpg

100% view = noise

http://www.aphanphoto.com/sample/s2.jpg

One click of your mouse:

http://www.aphanphoto.com/sample/s3.jpg

[40Dude6aedyk]

I've used the NR in DPP and also the NoiseWare community edition. I noticed a couple of things about NoiseWare:

First, it seems (at least to me) to add noise to your image, then miraculously take it out when you apply the filter. The NW "before" picture always looks noisier than the photo did outside of NW. Are they messing with me?

Second, if I use NW on a painted cinder block wall or on a pebbled-surface basketball (i.e. all basketballs) they both become smooth. I don't want them to become smooth, I want the noise out with the indentations left in the cinder blocks and the surface of the basketball pebbly.

Do any of the other noise reduction software remove noise without turning surfaces into billiard balls?

[René Damkot]

Noise = Structure = detail

Depending on settings and image, it might or might not be possible for the software to see a distinction between noise and detail.

[40Dude6aedyk]

So one needs noise reduction software that one can apply to selective parts of an image. Does that mean a GIMP or PS plug-in?

[Shooting]

I just use the default settings in noiseware and I'm satisfied.

[René Damkot]

If the structure in you subject is as fine as the noise, either you have very much noise, or very small detail.
I wouldn't reduce luminance noise at all then.

If I were to make a guess, I'd say NR is not needed in 80% of the cases it's used anyway. And it shouldn't have been used in about half of them.

[poloman]

One technique I have used instead of using NR is to run a high pass filter on a duplicate layer, open a black layer mask (press alt when you click on the symbol) and highlight the areas that I want to sharpen with a white brush. Now I duplicate the background again and run gaussian blur at 20 pixels, then reduce that to 20%. I then add a white layer mask to that layer. Now right click on the black layer mask on the high pass layer and choose "add layer mask to selection". Click on the white layer mask on the blur layer and select a large black brush. (make sure it is black) Now, paint over all the selected areas. This will knock out the areas you want to stay sharp from your blur layer.
The above method cures a few wrinkles, provides a glow and softens noise in the larger areas. I like to use it for portraits.

[Familiaphoto]

If you want a free NR program look at Noiseware. I used to use it before getting Noise Ninja and found it great for a free program. However, as mentioned previously, if you use NR programs remember to sharpen after not before.

[Headcase650]

So one needs noise reduction software that one can apply to selective parts of an image. Does that mean a GIMP or PS plug-in?

I use the free noiseware. What I do Is open the original image in photoshop and the open the filtered image from noiseware, then drag the filtered image over the original and use a mask to block out what I don't want or use the blend if sliders to just allow the shadows to show through the mask.