Help me think through this denoising project.

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Quite some time ago, I finished a project of scanning about 2000 of my Kodachromes. These full res TIFFS(5516x3677 or there abouts) have been edited to how I want them except for the last step of dealing with noise/grain where needed. I'd like to prepare about 350 of these images so that they are ready for print except for resizing and sharpening for output.<br>

I'm posting a 100% crop to show what I'm dealing with in some of these scans.<br>

Questions that I'd love educated answers to:<br>

1. In my 100% crop, is that scanner noise or film grain that I'm looking at?<br>

2. In your experience, which software would do the best job on this particular kind of noise/film grain?<br>

3. Is there any software that does an excellent job at protecting details and only using the denoising where it's necessary or will I be best off, using layers and or masks to take complete control of the selectivity myself?<br>

4. I would always want to be able, if necessary, to make very large prints. Considering this, should I make my denoising decisions while looking at a 100% view of the image?<br>

Thanks for answering these questions and any other questions that I may not know to ask. </p>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Crop</p><div></div>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>1. Yes, that appears to be film grain.<br /> 2. You will find much discussion here about the merits of the competing dedicated noise reduction programs - neatimage, noiseninja, etc.<br /> 3. That is the goal of all the nr programs, you can perhaps improve the results with masking, layers, etc. but for two thousand images it might keep you busy for quite a while<br /> 4. Yes, 100%, fine to check at other magnifications, but always examine at 100%<br>

<br /> Here's how your image looks taken through Neat Image Pro+<br>

<br /> There are a number of settings in Neat Image, so results vary a lot. You're always trying to clobber as little detail as possible while getting rid of as much noise as possible, a balancing act. Not sure I nailed it here as the shingles are pretty soft, but this gives you some idea. IMHO Neat Image is a lot better than the Photoshop nr filter.</p><div></div>

[howard_m]

<p>I can tell you that both Topaz or Noiseware did very well on that 100% crop although Topaz's defaults results in something a little too smooth although the roof retained details, the clouds less so.</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>I run a test print to see if any NR is needed. Sometimes it is not needed especially for a relatively small final print. I use the magic wand in PS to select broad fields of color such as the sky and send it to the Neat Image plugin and use a fairly heavy NR. Then invert the selection and resend to NI using a lighter setting for the rest of the photo, if necessary -- usually it is not necessary.</p>

<p> </p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>Noiseware Landscape default:</p><div></div>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Brett, Howard, Don and Brad,<br>

Thank you all very much. In particular, thank you for the examples. It appears that in this particular image that noiseware did a better clean up without loosing too much detail. I'm sure it all depends on what settings you use in any particular software but this gives me a good idea of what to try.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Any additional opinions, experiences welcome also.</p>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>In PS I just put the original, the Neat Image version and Noiseware version all in seperate layers so that I could toggle between them and get a little bit better idea of what's going on. I now see that although Noiseware cleaned up the sky much better, it was at the expense of detail in the roof and the cloud edges. I guess there is always going to be a tradeoff and one has to find there own balancing act.<br>

<br /><br />My initial thought here is that I could use the default on the sky but selectively cut back on the level of denoising in the roof. Not sure what I would do the the cloud edges. I guess you can't get quite THAT precise.<br>

<br /><br /><br />Thanks again. This is very helpful.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>Just remember that I used a Noiseware default, it's actually HIGHLY configurable with detail enhancements, sharpening, etc.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Jammer, You could use Don's method, which is a good one and which is what you seem to want to do, but you have to be very skilled and careful with your selections, as you can easily kill detail when you apply the heavy amount thinking you've got all the detail protected and you actually don't, and it's very easy to create abrupt changes between noisy and smooth in the open fields of color if your selections are not feathered enough, or don't extend close enough to where the detail starts. It's a pretty nuanced technique, and is time consuming with a lot of chance of error, but can have excellent results. It's not an approach that should be rushed or done casually, and you have to always check carefully at 100%.<br /> <br /> As Don also says, you may think that you have eliminate every bit of noise, but your print will let you know how much is tolerable. It may be that all the extra work isn't necessary in many cases, and you can go with a relatively conservtive treatment such as I posted, stopping at first sign of degrdation of detail, but still realizing a significant gain in the open areas.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>In PS I just put the original, the Neat Image version and Noiseware version all in seperate layers so that I could toggle between them and get a little bit better idea of what's going onit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is of limited usefulness as the programs all have a lot of settings. I would scour photo.net and other popular photo forums and read reviews to see which of the prominent programs seems best for the scans that you have, and download demos of any that you can and try them out. No fast and easy, but for 2k scans that you just spent all that time scanning at 4,000dpi and are now going to noise correct, it's worth the time.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Just a note, for a color corrected image this is lacking in low tones. The shadow around the roof corner would certainly have been darker than this. Your histogram is one-sided. You might play around with tonality a bit more.</p><div></div>

[roger_smith4]

<p>It looks fine. If you were printing very large I might use "color range" to select the sky and then do noise reduction just of the sky. A 4000dpi scan printed to 8x12 inches or so won't have much visible grain if this is what it looks like at 100%.</p>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Thanks again to everyone for your help. I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>Roger,<br>

That's really good to know. No sense doing a bunch of unneeded work. As several have mentioned, I guess test shots would be the way to go.</p>

<p>Brett,<br>

You can't really get a good idea about the tonality with such a tiny portion of the image. Here is the entire shot and it's histogram. It's not the best shot in the world but it holds a great place in my heart because it was taken across from where I grew up. If anyone were to have taken a shot from this same angle in the last 25 years, the image would be of a very busy highway and a steak restaurant. : -( <br>

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot."<br>

Actually, the reason I picked this image is because it is a very good representation of the film grain that I was concerned about. </p>

<p>Thanks again for all of your help! : -)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Histogram</p><div></div>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>sorry, yes, you're right, you can't make summary judgements about tones from a crop</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Didn't read the whole thread, but another basic question would be whether or not noise reduction is actually needed. "Noise" (or "grain") is a natural component of film photographs and most people don't find that unattractive. And, unless you are making a truly huge print, the noise will be much smaller and far less visible than it is here in the clinical view of a 100% crop.</p>

<p>Dan</p>