RAW and Noise Programs

Well I'm just starting to use RAW and compared to Jpeg,I understand theres no processing of the image in camera.I have submitted a few images to Stock agencies and all my images were rejected for noise.They looked fine to me in CS2,maybe I'm just not seeing it.
Anyway it looks as If I need to invest in a noise program and wondered how Neat Image compares to the others.

C'mon folks !, no response at all?

Hi Bsmooth, can you post some sample images up so we can see.
i'm using Neat Images for all my works, they works wonderful.
results images here.
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=3277812#p​ost3277812

A simple search for "noise reduction" in this forum brought up 7 pages worth of posts... did you do any searching at all, to see if anything already in the forum answered your question?

It would be helpful to see what you are talking about.

http://www.michaelalmo​nd.com/Articles/noise_​print.html

Even when shooting RAW, there still can be some processing done in your camera. Check your camera settings first before you start searching for noise removal software. I'd be looking at your ISO settings and in-camera sharpening.

peppies wrote in post #3329646
Even when shooting RAW, there still can be some processing done in your camera. Check your camera settings first before you start searching for noise removal software. I'd be looking at your ISO settings and in-camera sharpening.

ISO makes a difference to noise, of course, but RAW files are essentially unprocessed. Neither sharpening nor any other parameters make any difference to raw files, just JPGs.

there may be a lot of factor here:

1) ISO
2) Camera sensor
3) software (ACR uses a sharpening default that may generate noise).

I mainly shoot with available light needing therefore to change ISO frequently, so I use NeatImage very often and for me it works great.

Can you post a 100% crop? I can't believe that the majority of images would need any noise removal. A proper exposure and you should be good to go...

tim wrote in post #3329591
http://www.michaelalmo​nd.com/Articles/noise_​print.html

Tim:

Thanks for the link - very informational.

Now if they'd just do a LR version of NN.

This gets more interesting the more I look into it.I downloaded the free versions of noiseware and Neat Image.Here's the funny part I processed the RAW images in ACR.Each was about 4Mb.However after I processed them with Noiseware and Neat Image,each shrank down to between 980Kb and 1mb!
I don't understand this at all.I am trying to get images ready for Fotalia,ShutterImage, and Can Stock Image,however they all require at least 3Mb.
So why do the noise programs shrink the images so much? Neither program has many options as far as saving.
This is really frustrating.I don't mind fixing the noise,but getting rid of 3/4 of my image seems a little harsh.
Maybe thats why these are free versions of the software.I've read more threads of which is better,however in none of them was this even brought up.
Can someone explain why not only the noise,but the contents of my images is shrinkng so much? I'm sure this isn't normal,If it was No one would use the programs at all!

If those stock agencies work on file size, rather than resolution, that's, frankly, nonsense. The size of a lossy compressed image (such as a JPEG) depends on various things - the number of pixels, the amount of detail in the image, and the amount of noise. Remove the noise, and the resulting image is simpler - so the file is smaller.

They can't have it both ways. Making a 3MByte JPEG from an 8-10 megapixel image means that the quality slider is pushed way to the right - and there wouldn't be an appreciable drop in quality if you backed it off a bit, even though you're getting significantly smaller files.

I think you might have misunderstood - unless there's some reference somewhere that I missed out on. For example, Fotalia have this on their web site - which specifies an ideal resolution (at least 3000 x 2000 - 6 megapixel) JPEG with minimal compression. That doesn't mean any compression is bad - but you don't need to be after 3MByte JPEGs each time, as they're probably undercompressed.


Noise reduction programs can hurt the detail in your image; that's a side-effect of the way that they work. One way around this is to put the noise reduction on another layer, and mask it for surfaces - so that you only noise reduce the surfaces, where you most notice the noise. Certainly the 'professional' versions of some of these programs (I use Noise Ninja Pro Bundle) have a Photoshop plug-in, which makes this easier to do; the masking can be done with the (free) TLR Professional Mask Toolkit.


However, it's better to avoid the noise in the first place if you can - which means choosing a lower ISO. That, in turn, may mean adding light to your images and/or using a tripod. Noise reduction is the last option if you're out of other options and have to choose high ISO (such as indoor shoots where the light isn't that good, flash is either prohibited or you need ambient light for correct background exposure, you've done all you can with a fast lens and either a tripod isn't feasible or a slow shutter speed is undesirable).


I look forward to noise reduction plug-ins for Lightroom - but that will have to wait until Lightroom's SDK is released. It may just happen with Lightroom 1.1, but I'm not holding my breath. It would also be good if the plugins were enhanced to work as Smart Filters in Photoshop CS3 - but that certainly hasn't happened yet for Noise Ninja.

David

Bsmooth wrote in post #3348908
Can someone explain why not only the noise,but the contents of my images is shrinkng so much? I'm sure this isn't normal,If it was No one would use the programs at all!

It is normal.

What compression setting are you using?