I used to use Neat Image, but tried Noiseware on a lark....I no longer use Neat Image and rely on Noiseware to do the job.
ohenry Senior Member 397 posts Joined Nov 2003 Location: Oregon More info | Mar 08, 2007 21:41 | #16 I used to use Neat Image, but tried Noiseware on a lark....I no longer use Neat Image and rely on Noiseware to do the job.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tsmith Formerly known as Bluedog_XT  10,429 posts Likes: 26 Joined Jul 2005 Location: South_the 601 More info | Mar 08, 2007 22:08 | #17 I've used both NN and NW and find NW does a better job at retaining detail to me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lord_Malone Cream of the Manpanties........ Inventor Great POTN Photo Book  7,686 posts Likes: 1 Joined Oct 2005 More info | Mar 08, 2007 23:21 | #18 Steve Beck wrote in post #2840016  I will post a picture done with NN and noiseware for people to see the difference. I'd like to see the differences. I'm using Noise Ninja and I'm not sure I'm 100% pleased with some of the results. ~Spaceships Don't Come Equipped With Rear View Mirrors~
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Titus213 Cream of the Crop  More info | Mar 09, 2007 00:30 | #19 I've been using Neat Image Pro as a plug-in in CS2/3 and really like it. I have recently been trying it as the last function which allows me to tweak the results with Edit>Fade. Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tsmith Formerly known as Bluedog_XT 10,429 posts Likes: 26 Joined Jul 2005 Location: South_the 601 More info | Mar 09, 2007 07:13 | #20 Steve Beck wrote in post #2840016 I will post a picture done with NN and noiseware for people to see the difference. did you forget ...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SteveBeck Goldmember 2,503 posts Joined Oct 2006 Location: Greenville, SC More info | Mar 09, 2007 08:16 | #21 no went to bed, will get some up today sometime. Gear List? My gear is bigger than yours? Just shoot have fun...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 09, 2007 12:49 | #22 thanks everyone for your comments...sounds like pro's and con's for NN, NW, and Neat Image. With all of these though it sounds like each PS plugin can only process an already RAW converted image, eh? So i will have to apply the noise filter after the RAW conversion. Am i making any kind of sense? I guess applying a noise filter with a tiff image it isn't so bad. Compromise compromise. MKIII, 5D, Canon 1.4x and 2x Telec, 580 Ex, Timer Remote, Canon glass: 300mm IS f2.8L, 180mm f3.5L, 70-200 mm f2.8L IS , 24-70mm f2.8L, EF-S 10-22mm, 15mm f2.8 fish, 50 f1.4 (nifty fifty)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
g-money Goldmember  1,601 posts Likes: 2 Joined Jun 2006 Location: L.A. (Lower Arkansas) More info | Mar 09, 2007 13:49 | #23 I have to agree with Rene......... Nosieware Canon 6D X 2, Canon 5D, FUJI X100, Canon Rebel XT, Canon 24-70L VII, Canon 35L 1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS, Tokina 16-28 2.8, 580exII x2, Godox 850 X 2, 430ex
LOG IN TO REPLY |
joayne Cream of the Crop  More info | Mar 09, 2007 13:59 | #24 Ii have not tried Noiseware, but I started out with Noise Ninja and found it to soften my pics... a lot. I switched to Neat Image Pro and I have been very pleased with the results as a plug-in in PSCS2. joayne Contribute to POTN | Worldwide Photo Week
LOG IN TO REPLY |
thescottandrew Senior Member 906 posts Joined Apr 2006 More info | Mar 11, 2007 19:08 | #25 bsmith6280 wrote in post #2832644 thescottandrew and coreypolis--do you use RAW converter in CS2? Yup
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cgratti Lord_Malone, your still a newb...  3,315 posts Joined Feb 2004 Location: E-A-G-L-E-S - EAGLES More info | Mar 11, 2007 23:37 | #26 I used Neat image, Noise Ninja, and Noiseware Pro. Noiseware pro is the best of the bunch IMO. It's all I use now.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tazrebel Member  109 posts Joined Feb 2007 Location: Albuquerque, NM More info | Mar 11, 2007 23:45 | #27 i download the trial version of both NoiseNinja and Noiseware and tried them on different pictures. i have to say that for me, there was no comparrison. Noiseware won out everytime. NoiseNinja did a great job of getting rid of the noise but at the expense of too much softening. Aditionally, i found that NoiseNinja degraded the pixels easier than Noiseware. So there is my unqualified opinion, good luck. Kevin -
LOG IN TO REPLY |
boog69 Member 187 posts Joined Nov 2005 Location: Johnson City, Tennessee More info | Still waiting on comparison shots?? Canon 40D, Canon 20D, Panasonic FZ-30, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-300 IS, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 50 1.8 MK I, Canon 550 EX flash. Wishing for 135L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Rumrunner Goldmember  1,865 posts Joined Jun 2006 Location: El Paso, Texas More info | Mar 12, 2007 03:18 | #29 Lord_Malone wrote in post #2840756 I'd like to see the differences. I'm using Noise Ninja and I'm not sure I'm 100% pleased with some of the results. boog69 wrote in post #2856262 Still waiting on comparison shots?? Here is a comparison I did with NN and Noiseware.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TurboDean Senior Member 265 posts Joined Jan 2007 Location: San Francisco Bay Area More info | Apr 25, 2007 18:45 | #30 JS4KIKZ wrote in post #2832804 What I'd like to see are a few of the same images, each edited only for noise with each available noise reducer. Here's something I found along those lines: http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm Dean
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2808 guests, 179 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
!!!