C.H.Ling wrote:
> I remember it was briefly discussed before, searching the net you will also
> found some NR software comparison but many of them are quite outdated. I
> think the most popular one are Neat Image and Noise Ninja.
>
Noiseware Pro is another some one people seem to like It seems to me
that NR software has reached a certain level of maturity, at least until
the next mad genius invents a new algorithmic approach. I happen to use
NI for the simple reason that their trial version allows one to do
actual work and output it. JPEG only, but still, it's possible to learn
it, to like it, then sort of need to switch to one of the other versions.
I tried Noise Ninja at the same time, but it only outputs watermarked
files. not that that is unfair, I just found myself more interested in
the tool I learned while doing real work.
> You may already found NI will kill some low contrast details but there are
> lots of control you can change to improve it. Sometimes you also need to
> sample more than one area to do a fine-tune of the noise profile to make the
> NR more effective.
>
Just a reminder - masks are just right for NR My standard NI action
applies it on a new layer. Not uncommonly, the level and settings needed
for the shadows remove too much fine detail in brighter areas. So apply
the higher level and selectively paint it down or out where it is too
strong. Because NR isn't as obvious as brightness, LCE, etc., mask
painting is quite easy to get right. For really tricky noise situations,
I've used two NI layers for different areas.
I've run into images, especially with RAW files from the A650, where
the right NI settings actually reduce noise while enhancing detail -
occasional magic.
The Masked Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|