Noise reduction program?

[Miyuki]

Hi everyone:)

I'm currently traveling down the Great Ocean Rd.

This evening, I realised I forgot to turn ISO back after low light shots in the early morning, and spent whole day with ISO setting of 1000. Ouch...

I haven't checked photos with computer screen yet, but noise is pretty noticeable on the camera screen.

Could anyone suggest any good program or plug in for noise reduction?

I know re-shooting is the best, but the whole trip is for a funeral, so re-shooting is not an option.

Thank you for your help in advance :)

[ricktas]

There are some good ones for photoshop

Noise Ninja
Nik Software's Dfine
Imagenomic's Noiseware

They all do basically the same thing

[arthurking83]

It also depends on what software you already have.

ISO1000 is not as bad as you think(unless the images are underexposed).
I think ISO3200 is pretty good in terms of noise on a D7000 .. provided that your exposure was not too dark.

So that is, depending on the software you currently have, it may have a noise reduction feature that may work ok.

eg. Lightroom's noise reduction is usually quite good at minimising noise at middling ISO levels.


Also note too tho, don't assess image noise by viewing images at 100% zoom(pixel view). Look at the images at a size level that is closer to how you will present them (ie, either as prints or on other websites)
So if you only ever display the images with noise at say 1024x968 or something like that, noise will usually not show up in a displeasing way.

[Mark L]

http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx?product=noiseware

The last download is free and if the noise isn't to bad will do a good job. The photos may be softened a little if you have great detail in the photo (like close up bird feathers).

[ameerat42]

AK has said what I was going to say regarding noise at 1000ISO, so I will just emphasise it:
There should't be a problem unless they are significantly underexposed.
Am(phasising it).

[Miyuki]

Thank you Rick, Arther, Mark & Am, and I am so sorry for the late reply!

I finally got to see my photos on computer screen, and as Arther & Am said, it is not as bad as I thought. Having said that, since my hubby wanted to print out some photos from our trip, the noise is quite disappointing.

I attached one of my photos here. It was a foggy day, which did not help as well.
Maybe I could use one of the noise reduction programs suggested by Mark & Rick :)

Anyway, thanks heaps everyone!

[Mark L]

Others would know better than I, but your photo looks a little over processed (and this may lead to problems when printing).
The other question. Was this cropped or not? Cropping heavily can introduce more niose.

[ricktas]

I agree with Mark, the processing done here has let this down. Can we see the original?

[Miyuki]

Others would know better than I, but your photo looks a little over processed (and this may lead to problems when printing).
The other question. Was this cropped or not? Cropping heavily can introduce more niose.

The photo is slightly cropped, but what you said is probably right...over processed.

Here's the original:)

[ricktas]

Your original photo has the most amazing potential, and your processing has let you down. Remember that you are processing a natural scene, thus the object of editing is to enhance that natural scene. Based on your edit statement of allowing edits as long as we told you what we did:

1. Cropped some of the sky off
2. Added a vignette to the outer edges of the scene
3. Used a brush to increase the saturation on the monolithic structure and the greenery in the foreground
4. Darkened part of the clouds
5. Sharpened the photo
6. Did a levels adjustment

Your photography skills are good, just work on your editing and you will be producing some stunning landscape work real soon.

[Burrster]

Having seen the original you'll have no problem. any free noise removal program(or paid for!) will work great. The exposure is pretty much spot on.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is my simple version of your image to help show you it's potential, as Ricktas has also done.
I simply boosted selective colour saturation, increased the shadow areas by one stop, and used Niks Viveza to increase the cloud structure.
Just a taste of what could be done

[Miyuki]

Your original photo has the most amazing potential, and your processing has let you down. Remember that you are processing a natural scene, thus the object of editing is to enhance that natural scene. Based on your edit statement of allowing edits as long as we told you what we did:

1. Cropped some of the sky off
2. Added a vignette to the outer edges of the scene
3. Used a brush to increase the saturation on the monolithic structure and the greenery in the foreground
4. Darkened part of the clouds
5. Sharpened the photo
6. Did a levels adjustment


Wow...your version looks really good, Rick.
It is pretty clear that I have to work on editing skills.

I haven't done much landscape photos, and I have no clue what I am doing when it comes to editing :D
It is really nice that you wrote what you did in terms of editing. This helps me a lot in learning.

Thank you so much Rick :)

[arthurking83]

I'll also upload an edited version(edited with CaptureNX2):


99910

crop to show lack of noise(or minimal noise)
99911

While the image had a little colour noise within the shadow areas, the removal of it was very simple and in fact lost little or no detail quality at all.

I think even without the use of NR removal, the file could be printed to about A4 possibly even A3 without any detrimental effect of the colour noise in the image.

FWIW too, the original file had in camera NR set to On(high) too anyhow, and from what I understand as long as there is good image detail present in the image, this in camera NR setting doesn't affect detail quality as much as it used too in past times.

So in future while it's best to keep the quality as high as possible, don't stress too much over a setting such as higer ISO levels .. as long as it gives you a usable image.
That is, better high ISO and appropriate shutter speed rather than a lower ISO but blurry image due to low shutter speed.
(I'm sure you used a tripod in this instance tho!)

I'm also curious as to which software you used to produce the first uploaded image(edited).(It looks like CS6).
The reason I mention this, is because in the actual file the colour space of the image is not pre defined.
And because the image was shot in the adobeRGB colourspace in camera, this was transferred to the editing software. The editing software will then have saved the colourspace as is(aRGB), but because part of the exif data was stripped(ie, colourspace!!) the file now renders with a distorted colourspace compared to how it should look.

if you change the exif in that image to read aRGB, my hunch is that it will look significantly different. But as already said, even with that comment, the image still looks too over processed as well.

[Miyuki]

Here is my simple version of your image to help show you it's potential, as Ricktas has also done.
I simply boosted selective colour saturation, increased the shadow areas by one stop, and used Niks Viveza to increase the cloud structure.
Just a taste of what could be done

Thank you Burrster :)

Comparing your version and Ricktas's version, it really shows that editing makes a lot of difference in appearance and feelings. I have no clue how to do selective colour saturation that you mentioned. It seems like I have to learn editing skills before going through photos from my trip. I'll be busy googling tonight :D

- - - Updated - - -


I
...So in future while it's best to keep the quality as high as possible, don't stress too much over a setting such as higer ISO levels .. as long as it gives you a usable image.
That is, better high ISO and appropriate shutter speed rather than a lower ISO but blurry image due to low shutter speed.
(I'm sure you used a tripod in this instance tho!)

I'm also curious as to which software you used to produce the first uploaded image(edited).(It looks like CS6).
The reason I mention this, is because in the actual file the colour space of the image is not pre defined.
And because the image was shot in the adobeRGB colourspace in camera, this was transferred to the editing software. The editing software will then have saved the colourspace as is(aRGB), but because part of the exif data was stripped(ie, colourspace!!) the file now renders with a distorted colourspace compared to how it should look.

if you change the exif in that image to read aRGB, my hunch is that it will look significantly different. But as already said, even with that comment, the image still looks too over processed as well.

It is great to know about the ISO setting...although I will try not to forget to turn ISO back after shooting from now on :D

As for PP program, I used CS6, as you guessed.
Is there any setting to avoid this issue? (ie preferences on photoshop)
I use the basics of CS6, but there are so many settings and features that I don't know. I really have to work on that... :eek:

[arthurking83]

For me PP is simply a matter of taste.
Because of that, I think the best way forward is to just play around with settings, saving different versions of the same file as you go, and referring back to each one for comparisons.

There are general helps/howtoo's/tutorials on AP on how to better utilise photoshop, but I don't use it and can't help in that regard.

For really easy PP, download CaptureNX2 and give it a try.
It's a lot more basic than CS but also a lot easier to get good results quicker(when your experiences is at the beginners end of the spectrum).
If you're experienced with CS, then CNX2 may feel very limiting, I can see that, but I'm experienced with CNX2, and to me CS is very frustrating to get my head around fluently.

You can download a trial version of CNX2 and use it for 30days or so ... and you can integrate it into your ViewNX2 workflow easily.
If you still use VNX2, you can do basic sorting, rating and keywording(easier in VNX2 than CNX2) make batch adjustments to images for typical raw edits, such as whitebalance and exposure and picture controls .. etc....

Then you can simply open that file in CNX2 with a click of an icon in VNX2 and the edits you've (just)made in VNX2 are transferred over to CNX2.
(this helps with one of the issues you've recently raised too).

HERE (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?58353-Using-CaptureNX%282%29-for-Nikon-files) is a link to a simple and easy workflow for CaptureNX2 .. if you're curious.

[mongo]

The techniques used are a combination of the ones already described above by the others. Mongo did not really feel their was a noise issue at these sizes.

reasonably adjusted

99922

or extra dramatic

99921

Mongo must say, both of these two variations looked quite different on Mongo's screen before posting them. Now they look almost the same ????

[Miyuki]

...For really easy PP, download CaptureNX2 and give it a try.
It's a lot more basic than CS but also a lot easier to get good results quicker(when your experiences is at the beginners end of the spectrum).
If you're experienced with CS, then CNX2 may feel very limiting, I can see that, but I'm experienced with CNX2, and to me CS is very frustrating to get my head around fluently.

You can download a trial version of CNX2 and use it for 30days or so ... and you can integrate it into your ViewNX2 workflow easily.
If you still use VNX2, you can do basic sorting, rating and keywording(easier in VNX2 than CNX2) make batch adjustments to images for typical raw edits, such as whitebalance and exposure and picture controls .. etc....

Then you can simply open that file in CNX2 with a click of an icon in VNX2 and the edits you've (just)made in VNX2 are transferred over to CNX2.
(this helps with one of the issues you've recently raised too).

HERE (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?58353-Using-CaptureNX%282%29-for-Nikon-files) is a link to a simple and easy workflow for CaptureNX2 .. if you're curious.

Your CNX2 tute is pretty impressive!
I wonder how long it took for you to do that :D

From your tute page, CNX2 looks pretty good. It may be more basic, but basic is nice, considering I often find myself getting lost in the maze of photoshop. I will download the trial version of CNX2, and see if I like it. Since I already use ViewNX, I reckon that it wouldn't be too hard for me to get used to it :)

Thank you for the helpful advice Arther :)

- - - Updated - - -


The techniques used are a combination of the ones already described above by the others. Mongo did not really feel their was a noise issue at these sizes.

...Mongo must say, both of these two variations looked quite different on Mongo's screen before posting them. Now they look almost the same ????

Yes, I realised the noise isn't the main issue here after other people uploaded their versions of the photo :D

Those two photos look slightly different. #2 has more dramatic cloud colour and pop feelings due to its bright colours, which I quite like :) #1 looks more natural, and I'm pretty sure that would be many people's preference. It is really surprising how editing can made differences in how we feel about photos. I started this post about the noise reduction issue, but I must say I quite enjoyed to see how each person edited one photo differently, and it has been great learning :)

Thank you Mongo ;)