Dealing with noisy images...

Just wanted to post a quick before and after comparison using Topaz DeNoise.
I've been using it for some time and it works great most of the time, just need to play with settings.
Here is a 100% crop of an image taken with a cheap refractor and a good side-by-side comparison of what DeNoise is capable of.

I'm quite sold on Topaz, this is yet another example of how powerful it is .. though this could be better placed in the "talk about ..." section below.

nightskycamera wrote in post #19241109
Just wanted to post a quick before and after comparison using Topaz DeNoise.
I've been using it for some time and it works great most of the time, just need to play with settings.
Here is a 100% crop of an image taken with a cheap refractor and a good side-by-side comparison of what DeNoise is capable of.

Hosted photo: posted by nightskycamera in
./showthread.php?p=192​41109&i=i202482799
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

wow, what a great changes

xa-coupe wrote in post #19241560
I'm quite sold on Topaz, this is yet another example of how powerful it is .. though this could be better placed in the "talk about ..." section below.

I am not sure, I only use Topaz on astrophotography images. To be honest, I've never tried it on daytime images.

I recently shared a test I did using Topaz Sharpen AI and I too am completely sold on the product. I downloaded the demo for both DeNoise and Sharpen and decided on Sharpen AI because it not only sharpens the image but does much of the same noise reduction as DeNoise. Below are my comparisons with Sharpen Ai.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-pCsDBZt-XL.png&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-jXFDqsP-XL.png&lb=1&s=A

When you initially load up the page you'll see various sections, down towards the bottom you'll see ''Astronomy and Celestial Talk' and believeme it could use some activity!!

.

xa-coupe wrote in post #19241979
When you initially load up the page you'll see various sections, down towards the bottom you'll see ''Astronomy and Celestial Talk' and believeme it could use some activity!!

Hosted photo: posted by xa-coupe in
./showthread.php?p=192​41979&i=i73596246
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

.
Yes, I very much agree with you that this thread should have been put in the "Astronomy & Celestial Talk" section, instead of the "Astronomy & Celestial Photo Sharing" section. . . Making sure that every thread is in the most fitting section is very important to me.


.

But it's more than just a discussion. There are before and after images.

SiriusDoggy wrote in post #19242210
.
But it's more than just a discussion. There are before and after images.
.

.
It is far more than just sharing a couple pics, as there is discussion, and discussion is, by its very nature, far more important and a much bigger deal than just posting a couple of photos.

This thread is far more important than just a bit of photo sharing - it is an actual discussion, and as such belongs in the forum that was created for such discussions.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19242252
.
It is far more than just sharing a couple pics, as there is discussion, and discussion is, by its very nature, far more important and a much bigger deal than just posting a couple of photos.

This thread is far more important than just a bit of photo sharing - it is an actual discussion, and as such belongs in the forum that was created for such discussions.

.

So are we supposed to only post photos in this category without any discussion of the subject or how, when, where, what? Just asking.
And likewise, in the talk section are we supposed to NOT post any photos to back up the conversation?

SiriusDoggy wrote in post #19242682
So are we supposed to only post photos in this category without any discussion of the subject or how, when, where, what? Just asking.
And likewise, in the talk section are we supposed to NOT post any photos to back up the conversation?

.
Generally, the photo sharing sections are for the sharing of photos, primarily without discussion. . If someone posts a photo there and a discussion happens to ensue, then great!

But if you start a thread in which discussion is sought, then the discussion is the main thing, and the images are just little things that support the discussion, or that the discussion is based on.

In general, discussion is greater than photos. . It is primary.

So when one starts a thread in order to get answers or to generate a discussion, then that thread belongs in the talk section. . If someone just has pics to share and isn't necessarily asking questions or trying to start a discussion, then that thread should be in the photo sharing section. . It has more to do with the intention behind the thread being started than whether or not a few photos happen to be included.

These are just my opinions and observations after being involved here for so many years. . I have no authority here to say, officially, what should and should not be done in this area. . But it's really not hard to figure out ..... once you've read a few hundred posts in both of the sections, you get a feel for where discussions belongs and where photo sharing belongs. . "Read the room", as they say. . And no, I do not men to literally read what to do ..... I mean to observe, and then figure it out based on that thoughtful observation.

This thread really fits best in the RAW, Post Processing, and Printing section.


.

Interesting discussion. I did not expect that posting a before and after image would cause a domino effect.
Had I known that beforehand I would have posted this in the Celestial Talk section.
Lesson learned, enjoy your night everybody!

nightskycamera wrote in post #19242801
.
Interesting discussion. I did not expect that posting a before and after image would cause a domino effect.
Had I known that beforehand I would have posted this in the Celestial Talk section.
Lesson learned, enjoy your night everybody!
.

.
We can't help it!

We are photographers, who happen to be some of the most particular and persnickety people in the world. . Every tiny little detail in our lives, we have a very clear, very narrow view of exactly how it should be, and anything out of place is maddening. . We obsess over how things should be categorized, how things should be spelled, how things should be pronounced, and how things should be quantified. . That's what we do!

I mean ..... look at this - since I last visited the forum last night, there have been only 2 posts about the newly announced Canon EOS R3, while there have been 16 posts to the thread about how ISO should be pronounced. . Given that, is it any surprise that we get our panties in a bunch over where your thread should be placed?

I use self-developed NR actions using Noiseware as a base filter. I often shoot at ISOs above 6400, starting years ago, and have often shot at ISO 25600 or more.

For astronomically related photography however, I would likely have to generate a new set of filters I would use for that, because the removal of just a handful of closely located "noise" pixels could wipe out a galaxy.

I think this post belongs to the post processing section because it's about editing the photo.