Neat Image vs LR v4.4

I have been using LR since v3.0. The noise-reduction capabilities of LR 4.4 are nearly miraculous, IMHO. I have seen some threads on POTN that suggest Neat Image (NI) for NR. I have played with the trial version (8-bit only) and find it wanting.

If I process a raw shot completely in LR, I can get nice noise performance out of my 60D at ISO 6400. If I then send that LR-processed shot through NI, I can get minimal decrease in noise, with almost no loss of detail. The improvement is not worth the effort.

If I export that same raw shot, with no processing at all, to JPG, then run Neat Image, the program falls flat on its face. I can hardly tell the difference between the original and what Neat Image produces.

One of two things must be true. Neat Image is not worth the time if I already know how to use LR. Or... I have no idea how to get the most out of Neat Image. Any suggestions?

The last item.

It sounds like you are using LR noise reduction and then expecting NI to further reduce the noise. Running two separate noise reduction applications in seriatim is not a good idea. LR noise reduction tends to soften or blur image details as it reduces mostly high frequency noise by low pass filtering. With a less sharp image that has low frequency noise, it isn't very reasonable to expect another NR application to make further improvements. Also, working on a jpg is not a good point to be applying NR.

You can skip LR NR altogether and go to NI in the 16 bit image immediately after raw conversion. You can also use LR to reduce chrominance noise during raw conversion and then use NI to reduce luminance noise before resizing and converting to 8 bits.

IMO, Neat Image provides greater control for manual corrections or the convenience of auto noise analysis. LR has the advantage of not breaking the parametric workflow plus excellent NR. Usually, I stay in LR.

If you want to keep a tiff in your library, sure use a plug-in, it's as simple as that!!

I have both NIK and Topaz but have been using LR/ACR for NR exclusively for the last 2 years. This past month I have been setting up my camera profiles so NR amongst other settings are applied based on ISO.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #16892050
The last item.

It sounds like you are using LR noise reduction and then expecting NI to further reduce the noise. Running two separate noise reduction applications in seriatim is not a good idea. LR noise reduction tends to soften or blur image details as it reduces mostly high frequency noise by low pass filtering. With a less sharp image that has low frequency noise, it isn't very reasonable to expect another NR application to make further improvements. Also, working on a jpg is not a good point to be applying NR.

You can skip LR NR altogether and go to NI in the 16 bit image immediately after raw conversion. You can also use LR to reduce chrominance noise during raw conversion and then use NI to reduce luminance noise before resizing and converting to 8 bits.

I thought that would be the answer!

The trial version of Neat Image only works on JPG (8-bit), and I don't work with TIFF, only raw (from 60D/6D) and JPG. I would have to get lots better results with Neat Image to make it worth that kind of trouble. I just don't shoot that much at 6400 and higher. Especially if I can use my 6D. At 6400, LR does just fine with that camera.

tonylong:
I don't use tiff. I don't see the benefit if I stay in LR. Why not just work with the .cr2 I already have?

tzalman:
I am almost convinced to stay with LR. I may try the $29 full-version of NI first, though. When you say "auto analysis" do you mean on each individual image, or setting up by each cameras ISO setting? I don't do much individual image processing. It is usually grouped by shoot/lighting/iso or some common factor.

I don't understand the NI profiles by ISO setting. I think noise depends a lot more on subject matter, lighting, exposure, and dynamic range. In the right shot, my 60D is nearly noise-free at 3200. In a less well thought out exposure, I can get noisy shots at 1600 on my 6D. Fixing NR by ISO seems a bit weird. But then again, I don't know Neat Image very well.

My reference to the tiff was that, when using a plug-in or an external editor a tiff will be created with the results of your edits. I imagine that Neat Image and Lightroom handle this the way that Photoshop by default does, which is to generate the tiff and incorporate it into the Lightroom Library while opening it in NI to do the NI processing. When you then save the results, they show up in the LR tiff. If I'm mistaken here, someone feel free to let me know!

tonylong wrote in post #16893214
My reference to the tiff was that, when using a plug-in or an external editor a tiff will be created with the results of your edits. I imagine that Neat Image and Lightroom handle this the way that Photoshop by default does, which is to generate the tiff and incorporate it into the Lightroom Library while opening it in NI to do the NI processing. When you then save the results, they show up in the LR tiff. If I'm mistaken here, someone feel free to let me know!

Yes, I follow you. The problem is that Neat Image trial-version works only with JPG. It doesn't do 16-bit anything.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16893234
Yes, I follow you. The problem is that Neat Image trial-version works only with JPG. It doesn't do 16-bit anything.

Ah, I didn't know that, honestly I'm not a plug-in user so...I imagine that the "full" version lets you work with tiffs? Of course, it's up to you whether you want to work with jpegs or tiffs, 8-bit or 16-bit, and whether you want them in your LR library or not!

A raw file is essentially a container for a tiff along with a bunch of other stuff. I usually keep CR2 files, but rarely save the 16 bit version with the PS edits. Generally after NR, resizing, and a few other edits in PS, the final destination is a JPG.

BTW, I like the ACR chrominance NR, so I use it and then use NI for luminance NR. My reason for this odd use is that I mainly do bird photography where capturing fine details is a challenge and a necessity. High shutter speeds, small apertures, high ISO, low light, and long lenses help create the challenge. ACR/LR luminance NR removes the noise at the expense of smearing the finest details while NI is far better at keeping details while reducing luminance noise. For most other types of photography, the luminance NR in ACR/LR works just fine.

tonylong wrote in post #16893510
Ah, I didn't know that, honestly I'm not a plug-in user so...I imagine that the "full" version lets you work with tiffs? Of course, it's up to you whether you want to work with jpegs or tiffs, 8-bit or 16-bit, and whether you want them in your LR library or not!

You don't need to create a tif, per se -- just work on the raw after it has been "developed".

Well, it's more like a tif than it is like a Raw. If you are working entirely in PS, starting in the CR plugin and then sending an RGB rendering to the main body of PS it is a temporary bitmap in RAM and this image can in turn be opened in the NI plugin. At the end of the workflow you can save it to disk as a tif or jpg or whatever you fancy. However, if you start with LR, you can do this workflow only if you are going from LR to a version of PS that contains the version of CR that is parallel to your LR. If your PS is older (or instead of PS you go to the NI standalone), LR has to write a tif to disk.

tzalman wrote in post #16895613
Well, it's more like a tif than it is a RAW

Yep. I know all that. I didn't want the OP to have the impression that it was necessary to explicitly save a TIF to work on it or save the results of NR as a TIF in order for it to "take".

Neat Image is more geared toward full NR control in a PS or external editor workflow. You can analyze and apply NR on a per channel, or per frequency basis and make noise profiles to assign for batch, automated control. If you do most of your work in LR and need simple Luma/Chroma NR there is probably no need for NI. If you work in a PS-centric environment and need fine control, with profile-specific NR automation, then NI is worth a look. I do not need it very often, but when I have noise issues I use NI in PS.

kirk

I played with Neat Image pretty intensely this week. Powerful? Yes. I can get slightly less noise with slightly less loss of definition than I can get with LR, but it is a lot more work. The difference just isn't worth it to me. I'll stick to a work flow I already know.

Thanks, everyone.