Is neat image/noise ninja worth buying?

[matthewkane]

I have heard they cause pictures to lose texture, depth, and overall appeal.

I have also been told many people were astonished when they first saw what it could do...

but soon disappointed thereafter when they saw the prints. Should I even buy this prog?

Obviously using it in moderation is key. But I just wondered what your thoughts were.

Thank you

[briany]

They're free to try. They are both very good programs; I ended up with Noise Ninja and have been pleased. It's a tool that has to be applied judiciously, otherwise you will lose detail, but when used correctly it can make a big difference.

[Jochen_S]

The free trial of neat image is surely worth downloading. Some experts seem to prefer the luxury version, which offers a PS plug-in, which allows to use the Software only on unimportant parts of the picture, where details aren't needed but the noise sucks anyhow.

[mark pav]

Also worth looking at is <a href=http://www.imagenomic.com/>Noiseware</a>. I use it on

a new layer in Photoshop and adjust the opacity afterwards until I like what I see. Of course,

you can also learn how to use the program properly, then you wouldn't have to do it that way.

[roger_smith4]

I recommend both. I found Neat Image took more time to get to look acceptable. For me Noise Ninja is simpler, faster, and has fewer artifacts. I highly recommend it for noisy/grainy images. Use NN, then sharpen and you should be impressed.

[William Kahn]

Download the free trial Noise Ninja at www.picturecode.com. I think you'll like it.....

[dave_osborne]

I used neatimage for a while but then switched to noise ninja - with the default settings I thought Neatimage tended to overdo things - but noise ninja is a lot more subtle, for instance, for negative scans rather than remove the grain/noise it just calms it right down (scanning tends to exaggerate grain and I think this is a good counterbalance).

When I used Neatimage - I got grain/noiseless images but lots of artifacts too which I disliked.

I know I could probably get either to do the job I'm wanting but I don't have time to spend hours tweaking settings.

Just my preference - Noise Ninja.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I use Noise Ninja. I shoot an image (usually in the raw format), if it is a raw, I process it in

AACR or Capture One or Bibble Pro, and the first tjhing I do is run it through Noise Ninja if

it was shot at a high ISO setting (anything above 800.

 

I then do a capture sharpen ( raw presharpen in Nik Sharpener Pro 2.0 or the appropriate

capture sharpener

setting in Photokit Expert Sharpener.) I then do any post processing work that is needed

--

generally just spotting and cropping, maybe some resizing --convert to the appropriate

profile for my printer/paper combination, and do an output sharpening step based on the

size of the print and whetjer am printing on gloss or matte paper. The prints look a lot a

lot better than if I don't use Noise Ninja.

 

 

Using this workflow I think Noise Ninja is a great tool for when you need it-- which is

when shooting high ISO images.

 

I also use Noise Ninja as a first step in PsCS2 after I scan film.

[dan_linne1]

I call it blur ninja, because that's what it does. It would be good for a cloudless grainy sky, but on anything else it reduces sharpness, and for me that is what a photo is all about. Just my opinion, you must try it yourself.

[joel_blacher]

Would one be preferable for scanning versus digital RAW? I am using TLR scripts and actions and they seem to work very well...of course I have no real have no real basis for comparison because I have not used the other programs.

[dean_erger]

I use Neat Image with my film scans. It works great if you make a good film profile. At first, I made profiles from a few slides and got very good results. I then made profiles for Fuji Velvia 50 and Provia 100F using IT-8 targets and the results are spectacular. NI now removes virtually all grain with no loss of detail. The key is the quality of the profile. I suspect the same may be true for NN and other programs. My experience is with film scans only.

[robert lee]

I have not used Noise Ninja, but I use NeatImage quite a bit for negative film scans. When properly configured, grain and noise reduction is dramatic with no loss of detail.

 

I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the user interface. Using the program's built in calibration target, I have by now fairly complete database of film, exposure, and equipment profiles. This allows me to batch process scanned images, with no need for manual intervention at all.

[lex_jenkins]

In two words...

 

Yes.

 

Absolutely.

 

Anyone who complains about waxy skin or overdone noise reduction isn't using these tools effectively.

 

I've been documenting my newborn nephew's life since he was born a little over a week ago with a serious heart condition. After his open heart surgery I didn't want to use flash so I've been relying on my Nikon D2H at ISO 800 and 1600.

 

The D2H is a great camera but very noisy at 1600. Most of the problem is chroma noise, botchy reddish and greenish stuff. I prefer to keep most of the luminance noise because it resembles film grain and adds to the documentary feel that I like. But I can't stand that chroma noise.

 

I start out with the camera/ISO specific profiles in Noise Ninja. Then, in the luminance noise section, I pull back the strength slider to -5. I might bump the smoothness slider to +5 because this particular slider is very subtle. I don't change the contrast because even tho' NN reduces contrast slightly I prefer to fix this later in post processing.

 

Most of the tweaking I do is in the color (chroma) noise section. While NN is pretty effective at reducing green and red splotches at the default settings I'll usually bump it up +5. I'll also adjust the saturation slider to accomodate the information in the photo. The D2H tends to exaggerate red noise so if there's actual red in the photo - such as a red blouse - I have to strike a balance between reducing red noise and maintaining the saturation of the desirable red colors.

 

I turn off sharpening in NN. It's old school hamfisted USM and unflattering for most photos. Besides, sharpening should be saved for last and since noise reduction is usually done first it's best to skip any sharpening in the noise reduction process.

 

There's another side benefit to using noise reduction: It decreases the file size for many images. Noise adds a bunch of useless information to a file. Eliminating noise can reduce file sizes significantly.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Same photo after Noise Ninja. These are 1:1 crops.

 

I made prints from these files last night on a Kodak dye-whatever printer. The first version, without noise reduction, looks even worse in print that onscreen. The NN version looks beautiful. In a 5x7 print the grainy noise is hardly noticeable and there's no greenish and reddish splotches to spoil the skin tones.<div></div>

[matthewkane]

Ok so now do I need the Pro bundle package to use with RAW files??

I'm assuming the 8 bit version Home bundle only works on jpegs and 8 bit .tiffs?

Which do you prefer?

Thanks

[dave_osborne]

I got the Pro version because I want all my PS manipulations to be in 16bit and I think noise reduction should happen before manipulation so for my purposes I needed 16bit tiff support. Horses for courses though.

[darrenmambo]

<p>In my opinion, "Are they worth buying" is the same answer as "will you ever shoot anything over ASA 400?"

 

<p>I've been using Neat Image for years now... I recently downloaded the trial version of Noise Ninja, and tested them both on the same images.

 

<p>My general finding was that (Neat Image, Edit->Fade 80-90%) is pretty much identical to Noise Ninja.

 

<p>As to the quality, it really depends on how much time you want to spend profiling. Both programs let you make "custom" profiles for your particular camera, but what I've learnt is that the profile you make at home under normal "home" lighting (e.g. incadescent, flourescent) will not be perfect for the shots you take in a club lit entirely by coloured spotlights, or industrial floodlights, etc. Additionally, every change you make in Camera Raw effectively changes the noise profile for that particular image.

 

<p>So, long story short, what I've learnt over time is that if you're after top quality, it's best to (A) either treat every shoot like a catalogue photographer would, and shoot your GretagMacbeth colour chart and your noise target under the same lighting as everything else, and/or (B) be willing to create a custom profile from every image you shoot.