noise ninja

<p>Are you happy with it, is it easy to use? Any opions?? I need something to get the noise out of the volleyball shoots i take Indoors (1600 iso 400 shutter f2,8 70-200) little dak and grainy shoot in jpeg</p>

<p>you should check Topaz DeNoise and/or Noiseware too</p>

<p>And Neat Image.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Noiseware Pro is great, check it out.</p>

If you shot on NEF, try a trial of DxO 5.

<p>Been using Noise Ninja for a few years now. Works great. Tried the Noiseware demo this year - it's very good, just as good as Noise Ninja and has some useful presets that save time fiddling with various settings. Try 'em both. I stuck with Noise Ninja because it's a little quicker on my creaky old PC. If you have a newer computer both will be very zippy.</p>

<p>Either way, go easy on the luminance noise reduction. Overuse causes that plasticky or waxy look. A little "grainy" noise seldom hurts a photo. You can crank up the chroma noise reduction safely with most photos, tho' it will reduce saturation in some colors (mostly reds, with my D2H).</p>

<p>You can try a free demo of Noise Ninja before you decide. I use it mostly when I've had to use very high ISO settings just to get the shot. Works amazingly well.</p>

<p>Sorry to jump on this thread but a question regarding the above programs vs. NX2. <br>

I just bought NX2 and found the noise reduction to be great (using a D90 and seem to use it sparingly at above 3200 ISO). Would some of these programs above do a better job of NR vs NX2? (I used to use LR2.4 for all my editing but fell in love with NX2 after trying out the 60 day demo, especially so on the control points, NR and sharpening).<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Just tried Noiseware Pro the free community version THAT IS THE COOLEST AND EASIEST THING TO USE. I am not a techy person THANK YOU</p>

<p>I prefer Nik Define</p>

<p>I'm happy with Noise Ninja. It has lots of options, but I confess I've never gotten around to learning about them. I just run it with default settings. If it's too much, I turn down the opacity of the Ninja'ed layer, and it it's not enough, I run it a second time. I usually use masks to confine it to areas where it's needed.</p>

<p>There's a comparison of Noise Ninja and two other programs in the current issue of Photo Techniques magazine. The author concludes that each has strengths and weaknesses and doesn't pick a favorite.</p>

<p>I've used NN on and off for a few years. Maybe I need to upgrade my v2.1.3 Photoshop plug-in. It doesn't work that well for me. I shoot some theater work at 800 ISO on a D70s and haven't been elated with the results. Sometimes the noise is better, but the detail goes blurry. One of the reasons I'm upgrading to the D90 is because how it handles ISO grain. Less detail for less noise is a hard trade-off. Then again my ver. is older. I'm sure they've made improvements.</p>

<p>If you're seeing less detail with Noise Ninja try reducing the effect of luminance noise reduction. Choose the option to show the advanced controls. This should reveal more sliders to control the amount of luminance and colors (chroma) noise reduction effects. Use lower settings for luminance noise reduction.</p>

<p>While Noise Ninja includes presets for many cameras based on EXIF data, sometimes the luminance noise reduction and overall smoothing is excessive at higher ISOs for some cameras. With my D2H files at ISO 800 or above, I'll often reduce the luminance noise strength and smoothness sliders to -5 or -10. I'll also increase the color/chroma noise reduction as much as +20 for ISO 1600 and above, since this more effectively reduces the blotchy color noise. The tradeoff is some loss of overall saturation but this can be fixed later after noise reduction.</p>

<p>Noiseware presets seem pretty effective as-is, but offer a more complex set of tools for finessing the amount of noise reduction. I'm still working on my technique with it and haven't found it quite as easy to finesse as NN.</p>

<p>I do not think that the noise reduction differs very much between noise ninja and neat image.<br>

Noise removal from digital images is pretty much worked out as far as images that are already converted from RAW files are concerned. (Noise removal from RAW files is a different story and a complex debate :-)<br>

What differs largely is the user interface. Both NN and Neat image present nice graphical user interfaces. So unless you want to pull all the strings it really depends how intuitive either of the two works for you. There is no free noise removal without the cost of loss of detail. Whatever you do to remove noise you loose detail - and only you can decide about the best compromise. This is why you need a good user interface.<br>

The best strategy is to remove noise in two steps:<br>

1) remove noise during conversion from RAW<br>

2) remove remaining noise using as much visual control as possible according to taste.<br>

Step one alone is often not sufficient since at present RAW converters do not offer enough control. A particular good example of excellent noise removal is NX2. At the same time NX2 is a particular bad example of a GUI.<br>

Just my pount of view. Espcially concerning NX2 opinions drift away for miles :-)<br>

PS:<br>

1) Noise removal is often overdone if one spends money on dedicated software ^^<br>

2) Since I got my D3 I hardly ever use the above mentioned step 2 or even step 1.<br>

The D3 sensor offers such low noise that I rarely feel a need to remove noise and secondly the noise from the D3 looks very good to my taste so I rather go with it than clean the hell out of it. :-)</p>