Two questions for Noise Ninja users

First, do you find that you get better results by loading a preset profile from PictureCode or by hitting "profile image?"

Second, I've been doing capture sharpening (using TLR's script) as the first step and NN as the second. Is this order correct, or should these steps be reversed?

Thanks!

You should always get rid of the noise first, otherwise you will end up processing it.

Profiling the image generally produces better results, just don't overdo the levels.

I use auto profile on each image almost always...works great....
do any processing after NN.....don

The reason I asked about capture sharpening was that this ends up requiring me to run NN twice - once initially and again after capture sharpening. I thought it seemed more efficient just to do it once. I'll have to do some testing and see whether it matters.

The answer is... It depends. Start with Profile when there is one.

Always do the Capture Sharpening AFTER NN.

See my own 2-page, abbreviated, getting most from NN thingy:
http://postit.rutgers.​edu …injaWorkflow%5F​Jack%2Epdf

The answer, IMO, depends on
1) particular camera body;
2) ISO speed selected;
3) nature of image (large patches of similar color and tone or not);
4) if camera ambient temperature is hot during shooting;
5) whether you are using NN on in-camera JPG image (suck with noise and artifacts) vs. 16-bit TIFs from RAW files (always fewer artifacts);
6) if images were underexposed under adverse light and "pushed" on RAW conversion or in PhotoShop.

I found for 20D, and high ISO champ 1-D MkII; Shooting ISO 800-1250-1600; with good RAW exposures (that's the caveat);
that converted 16-bit TIF exposures are extraordinary. I start with NN downloaded profiles, BUT ALWAYS ADJUST DOWNWARD USING THE DIRECTIONS IN MY GIDE ABOVE the Filter tab default effects for Luminance and Color, which are set at 10-10-10. For Luminance e.g., I usually end up with 7-4-10 and for Chroma noise 3-3-10.

Wow. Way reduced! Then I save this profile under a new name, use it in batch mode, and/or recall it in future.
So, I have modified profiles named, like "1DMkII ISO-1250 TaeKwonDo.nzp", etc.

It's different on Scans, and on Nikon digital images, which are far noiser, even at ISO 400.
Hope that helps.
Jack

vjack:
Here's an example.
This is ISO 1250 ...and... underexposed 0.6 stop to keep shutter speed up. "Pushed" on RAW conversion.

http://postit.rutgers.​edu/uploads/TaeKwonDo%​5F05%2Ejpg

From the ISO and underexposure, this should have been loaded with noise in the monotone white, gray, or red, and flesh tones.

But NN just does one mean job!
Jack

I usually shoot RAW, using Adobe Camera Raw. I find that the best results from Noise Ninja come from profiles made from charts that I shot RAW and ran through Adobe Camera Raw, then used Profile Chart and saved the profile.


I have a set of chart images shot using bounced flash, shot at whole stop intervals from -3 to +2 FEC at all ISO values on my 20D. I've built a set of profiles at third stop intervals from -3 to +3 Exposure in Adobe Camera Raw, with all Camera Raw settings at the defaults. In each case, I use an image that's no more than two thirds of a stop underexposed (so for +2.67, I'll use the -2 FEC image). -3 used the +2 FEC image - +3 FEC was horribly blown.

If I have done something unusual in Adobe Camera Raw, the best results come from copying the Camera Raw parameters to a chart image of similar exposure, profiling that chart, and using the profile to denoise the image. Camera Raw settings can be morved around easily using a few mouse clicks in Bridge. Most of the time, though, my standard profiles suffice.


Unlike a previous poster, I find that Profile Image produces less than stellar results - though by all means use it if you don't have a pre-prepared profile or the ability to make a profile.

Maybe I ought to make my 20D profiles for Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 available somewhere. It was about two hours of work to shoot all the images (FEB on a 580EX with the custom function that stops FEB auto-cancelling speeded things up greatly), then process them into the profiles.

David

Certainly would like to get sharing access to your NN profiles. Sound most useful after all your work. If we can't share, then Forum is less useful.

The profiles NN provides are useful, but I think were created using in-canera .JPGs targets, not using TIFs or JPGs processed from RAW with ACR, which have different (better) characteristics.

Contact one of the moderators, and see if you can provide a "Sticky" post with your profiles packaged as a downloadable .zip in a link.
Jack

I've put a link to download the profiles as a Zip file, together with full information on the settings, used in this post. As I said there, any feedback is welcome.

David