digital photo software clean up.

[sjmurray]

<p>I played around a little bit with your image in PS CC ACR, Elliot, and got a little closer to your DXO version, although not getting quite as much detail preserved, but it is pretty close.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Here's an example run through Noise Ninja and tweaked in Lightroom, but you'd need a TIFF from the raw file to do a proper job and minimize the horizontal lines and other artifacts.</p>

<p>Been awhile since I'd used Noise Ninja - I'd forgotten how good it can be with difficult photos, even when you only have a JPEG to work with.</p>

<p>Anyway, with less aggressive luminance NR there's more natural skin texture and fine detail in hair. And if you have time and patience to work in layers you can selectively brush in the desired effect throughout the entire photo. But I've gone to that trouble only with portraits taken in dim artificial lighting where no single global noise reduction setting was satisfactory for the entire photo.</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Elliot, if the example of DXO Prime you showed was more or less the default settings and didn't require extensive manual intervention (eg, painting more or less of the effect in different areas, two passes, one for darks, one for light areas, etc.), I'm impressed.</p>

<p>I played with your starting image using three of my favorite NR tools: Neat Image, Topaz DeNoise, and Ximagic denoiser and performed the manual adjustments listed in the previous paragraph. After 20 min of work :-( , I wound up with the attached version.</p>

<p>It's not bad compared to yours (eg, intentionally, I let a bit more skin texture remain), but I certainly don't want to be spending many minutes on each image that needs to be processed.</p>

<p>Tom Mann</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Lex, did you somehow re-texturize the skin? Also, what happened to the color? Surely, Noise Ninja didn't make the image that cold, did it?</p>

<p>If Noise Ninja pulled that skin texture out of the posted version, and you didn't add it as a separate step, I'm impressed. I haven't tried NN in probably 4 or 5 years. The skin texture you showed is enough to make me download the latest version and try it again.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>PS - You did a great job dealing with the highlights (eg, hot spots on the nose, upper eyelid, cheek, etc.). How did you do this?</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Steve - I bet that if you could have run the NEF through ACR's NR instead of having to use a JPG, I bet ACR would have given you even better results.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I am confirming that the DXO Prime NR settings were at their default settings. Attached is the crop as opened in CS6 with its default settings with no noise reduction applied. When I attached my original samples, I processed the image with NR to try and match the noise levels of the DXO sample (I guess actually to match the lack of noise). There are numerous ways to remove noise with Photoshop. I have found prior to DXO Prime NR that I could sometimes do better in CS6 than I could with DXO in creating a pleasing high ISO image. But it was always time consuming. Now I just rely on DXO because it is so good and so fast (you don't have to do anything).</p>

<div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>Correction to the above, the 2nd sentence should have ended with "with its default settings with no <em><strong>additional</strong> </em>noise reduction applied" ACR does apply some NR with its default setting.<br>

<br>

Again, I want to remind everyone that if this was printed as an 8 x 10 or smaller, you would probably not see any noise or see any differences between the various versions. Below is the full frame as shot with the D800, and it clearly shows the D800 downsampling advantage.</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>opps, wrong size...</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Tom, I did use ACR version 8.2. In PS CC you can use ACR and all its functions on jpgs as well as nefs. Its a great tool! </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Here's another try taking about 30sec using ACR 8.2 in ps cc on the jpg. I used the noise reduction sliders and added some lightness to the highlights to try to match the dynamic range of Elliot's image.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>I also have a d7100 and shoot a lot of high iso shots, typically 3200 indoors. I have been very pleased with the NR of ACR 8.2 in PS CC. As I mentioned above, CC has ACR as a filter as well that can be applied to jpgs. As a filter, it could be used in "automate/batch" to process a folder full of jpgs, but it doesn't work with raw files (I tried). IMO the D7100 at 3200 really doesn't need much noise reduction, especially if you intend to print smaller than 20 inch prints, because the pixels and noise are reduced when you reduce the print size. </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi Steve - From your comments about being able to process JPGs in CC's ACR, it sounds like you may not be aware that this has been possible for at least the last few generations of PS. I have been opening JPGs in ACR for several years now. The improvement that CC brings is that one can now use ACR as a filter within PS, not just as a "front end" to PS.</p>

<p>My comment about using ACR on the NEFs instead of on JPGs was intended to point out that the ACR's NR (as well as several other features) works much better when it has access to raw sensor data from each photosite, rather than having to deal with the aftermath of demosaicing, gamma and other tonality and color corrections, data compression artifacts, 8 bpc instead of 12 or 14 bpc, etc. that are all cooked into any JPG. </p>

<p>The advantage of doing NR as early as possible in the workflow, ie before any other processing or adjustments have been made is illustrated by difficulties I encountered when I experimented on one of your early images. I wasn't sure exactly what had happened to the highlight areas (eg, side of her nose, cheek, etc.), but it was obvious that the noise statistics (quality of the noise) in these areas were considerably different from the noise in other areas. This is why I wound up using different settings for the highlights, midtones, and shadow areas. OTOH, if I had started with the image you posted captioned, <em>"opened in CS6 - default settings -no additional NR applied"</em>, or, even better from the raw file, the statistics of the noise in these different areas would have been the same and one could get equivalent or better results with much less effort. It was only after you made your comment that you added some brightness to the highlights that I found out the source of the extra work required, LOL.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>PS - I fully second your comments that less NR is needed if you are going to substantially down-rez an image. Even dramatic image imperfections like hot pixels are substantially tamed when one averages several adjacent pixels in the original to get one pixel at the new, lower rez. That being said, just like my previous comments, the best choice is to kill the hypothetical hot pixel as early as possible in the workflow, before it's effect spreads to adjacent pixels.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex, did you somehow re-texturize the skin?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. That's just messing with the Noise Ninja sliders for luminance amount, smoothness and contrast; and chroma amount, smoothness and saturation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Also, what happened to the color? Surely, Noise Ninja didn't make the image that cold, did it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was done in Lightroom. I was kinda sleepy when I posted that sample and forgot to detail the steps. It's just auto white balance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You did a great job dealing with the highlights (eg, hot spots on the nose, upper eyelid, cheek, etc.). How did you do this?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's all Lightroom. It's the best I've found for recovering highlights with subtlety and finesse. Between the sliders for highlights and whites in the basic tone adjustment box, and the tone curves highlights slider - each of which has a slightly different effect - it's possible to finesse most highlights really well.</p>

<p>If I had the original raw or TIFF I'd have gone a bit farther in tweaking the eyes and shadows, but some horizontal artifacts were already becoming too visible from working with a JPEG.</p>

<p>Highlight recovery is one of the features that sold me on Lightroom. Nikon's is nowhere near Lightroom in this feature - Nikon's highlight recovery ranges from "No effect... no effect... no effect... solid ugly gray patch." Ditto noise reduction. While Lightroom isn't quite in the same league as Noise Ninja and Noiseware in terms of versatility, it's far better than Nikon's. Lightroom is far better at sharpening too, especially if you include the clarity slider as an equivalent to contrast masking using the unsharp masking tool in most pixel level editors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If Noise Ninja pulled that skin texture out of the posted version, and you didn't add it as a separate step, I'm impressed. I haven't tried NN in probably 4 or 5 years. The skin texture you showed is enough to make me download the latest version and try it again."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm still using my original copy of NN from almost 10 years ago. Still works great, although it's a kludge having to convert raw to TIFF just for the noise reduction (which Noise Ninja recommends as a first step, before any other adjustments), then syncing back into the Lightroom catalog for final adjustments. But it's useful for really tricky situations, especially photos of people.</p>

<p>The ability to view luminance and chroma channels, in addition to RGB, really helps in finessing subtle NR effects. It seems unnecessarily complicated when I describe it, but of all the older style noise reduction tools I tried several years ago, Noise Ninja was consistently the best overall, between speed of response, adjustments vs ease of use, and end results.</p>

<p>I will admit DxO looks really good, based on the various examples I've seen. If I was in the market for another editing tool I'd definitely consider DxO.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm going to upload a few full sized JPEGs from the D2H at ISO 1100, a noisy bugger with some visible chroma noise even at base ISO 200 that would have had me giving up on the D2H years ago without Noise Ninja. The D2H does no internal noise reduction, other than long exposure NR. And ViewNx2 does no NR for the D2H either, although it does for the V1 - ViewNX2 seems to apply only the default settings for a particular Nikon model.</p>

<p>Back around 2005-2006 I tried all the then-current noise reduction utilities and raw processors that offered NR, and Noise Ninja's standalone version was consistently the best for the D2H. Bibble, a pretty good raw processor for that era, included a version of Noise Ninja that was more limited than the standalone version and tended toward over-smoothing and a superficially pleasant pinkish look to skin that, now, feels a bit saccharine. Looking back recently at my Bibble-processed raw files from a 2006 hospital documentary project, I'll need to redo all of 'em in Lightroom to get a more consistent, coherent look.</p>

<p>Noise Ninja is still subjectively better than Lightroom's noise reduction, but Lightroom is good enough for most of my needs and I really like the workflow - it's a pleasure not needing to render to TIFF before further adjustments in another editing tool.</p>

<p>The main difference I see between Noise Ninja and Lightroom is that NN can smooth out areas where there is no detail or texture of any consequence, while leaving essential detail where desired: skin texture, detail in eyes and hair. Additionally, NN offers a brush tool to selectively reduce/remove noise reduction in critical areas such as eyes.</p>

<p>Lightroom's brush tool does not quite match Noise Ninja in selectively finessing noise reduction. This may not be a priority for most Lightoom users because the current crop of dSLRs are far, far superior to my D2H in terms of high ISO noise.</p>

<p>But for folks who are still using early (actually 3rd or 4th generation) Nikon dSLRs like the D2H, D100 and D70, Noise Ninja is the bee's knees. Ditto Imagenomic Noiseware, which appeared to produce identical results with less effort, while not offering quite the same level of finessing chroma, luminance and RGB channels. Both are also excellent for digicams that produce only JPEGs or TIFFs, without any raw option.</p>

<p>Here's a straight conversion in Nikon ViewNX2, from NEF to JPEG, using neutral settings, no noise reduction, etc. Any apparent sharpening is the default in ViewNX2, which appears to apply a sharpening of around 2 or 3 - too much for my tastes, but adequate to compensate for lossy JPEG compression.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm uploading full rez versions directly to the thread to avoid any re-compression imposed by photo.net on our portfolio spaces. So these will all appear as attachments rather than appearing inline.</p>

<p>If anyone would like an uncompressed TIFF to play with I can attach one, but this first upload is at maximum JPEG quality and probably will work just as well for tinkering with in your favorite noise reduction tool.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Same photo, converted from NEF to TIFF in ViewNX2, then run through Noise Ninja standalone in default settings for D2H at this ISO. Usually I'd tweak Noise Ninja for a little more chroma noise reduction and a little less luminance NR, but for example purposes I'm leaving it at the default.</p>

<p>It's pretty good for the D2H above ISO 800, especially in artificial lighting - the D2H is awful under most artificial light, due to excessive sensitivity to near IR. I'm happy with this for the D2H, and would normally use this noise reduced TIFF for additional tweaking to correct white balance, color, exposure, etc.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Same again, this time converted completely in Lightroom from NEF, while attempting to emulate the ViewNX2 look as closely as possible.</p>

<p>Subjectively, Lightroom preserves essential detail equally to Noise Ninja, but doesn't smooth out the out-of-focus surroundings as pleasantly. Lightroom's noise reduction sliders aren't as effective as Noise Ninja's for finessing subtle yet visible differences.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Last up, a color corrected version in Lightroom. My living room CFLs are awful with the D2H and cannot be accurately color corrected to show Eartha Kitty's true coat of predominantly steely gray fur with tinges of tan in the white.</p>

<p>A recent casual photo conversations thread on lights was, um... enlightening ... regarding the color rendering index shortcomings in CFLs. My usual fix is to covert to monochrome and be done with it.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>By the way, again, those were all with the D2H at ISO 1100, under ordinary curly-cue CFLs, 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor at f/1.8, 1/30th sec.</p>

<p>The main difference I see between the ViewNX2 and Lightroom samples are in highlight detail in the white fur around Eartha Kitty's face. Lightroom is far superior in retaining highlight detail. It's been awhile since I tried Capture, but as I recall it couldn't match Lightroom in highlights. That's a huge factor for shooting at high ISOs, in contrasty lighting, and especially with digicams having limited dynamic range. If you're fortunate enough to have a current model FX/full frame dSLR, you might not even need those advantages in highlight recovery.</p>

<p>In terms of subjective noise reduction and sharpening, you can see the out-of-focus periphery of the whiskers appear very slightly "dirty" and gritty in the Lightroom examples, compared with the smoother rendering of Noise Ninja. I played with noise reduction, sharpening and other settings as much as patience allowed, but couldn't quite match the smoother rendering of Noise Ninja while also retaining essential detail.</p>

<p>I'm tempted to upgrade Noise Ninja, since I'm still using my version from 2005 or 2006. It's really good. But I may also give DxO a trial version spin if it does the same thing more easily and quickly.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Tom, my previous version of PS was CS4, and I don't think I could open jpgs with ACR, maybe I could and just didn't know. Anyway, the ACR filter in CC is really handy. <br>

Lex, I've found that the modern sensor of the D7100 handles different kinds of light very well. I shoot around our house which is lit with the newer bulbs and my colors are quite natural. Even street lights turn out looking natural. <br>

Steve, with the D7100 you can shoot even at 12,800 iso if you need to and get acceptable noise with any decent noise reduction program, and if you reduce the size, then it is even better. Here's a shot with streetlights, kit lens, 1/13 sec with VR, iso 12800, some noise reduction in ACR but the colors were pretty much as shot. </p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Okay, one more example, just to demo some of the versatility in Lightroom - again, the main advantage over a standalone noise reduction tool like Noise Ninja is there's no need to render the raw file to TIFF, evaluate, try again, lather, rinse, repeat.</p>

<p>Same photo, this time with:</p>

<ul>

<li>the global clarity pulled back from +25 to -15, which reduces some grittiness in out of focus areas, and minimizes local contrast in some areas; and</li>

<li>sharpening radius increased a bit to minimize artifacts around the whiskers; and</li>

<li>brush adjustments just to the eyes to boost color, contrast and clarity to offset the global reductions in sharpness.</li>

</ul>

<p>If I wanted to spend more time on it I could use brushes to further minimize any remaining luminance noise texture in the out of focus areas.</p>

<p>Lightroom 5.x offers even more selective adjustment tools, so I'll be upgrading to it soon. Lightroom is gradually closing the gap between simpler workflow tools and pixel level editors, in terms of relatively straightforward retouching and adjustments. I tried the trial version late last year and was really impressed with the heal/clone tool, which now behaves more like a real brush (although it's still not in the class of a pixel level editor). The local gradient and other features are also improved, and overall LR5 felt just a little quicker than LR4.x on my middling PC.</p>

<div></div>

[steve_howard4]

<p>Thanks again for all the info and pics. But I am more confused now then ever! haha<br />Many of the abbreviations i don't know what they are.<br>

ACR, CC, D2H,<br />I assume CSx are all just different versions of lightroom?<br>

Some questions from earlier still looking for:<br />-Do either of the free downloads add a bunch of junk to your computer?<br />-Do any of the programs over do any adjustment often/make pic worse or is one better at leaving a photo be?<br />-If a RAW image, that is simply converted to a jpg, will the jpg have some sort of processing automatically and look better as a jpg than RAW?</p>

<p>****I am basically looking for an automated batch program at this point to clean up new photos taken in RAW, as well as past photos in jpg and not over do a photo. Kind of what it sounds like Perfectly Clear(Athentech) does. Or am I missing something here?<br>

I am also looking for one that has good ISO NR as well. I don't think I necessarily need the best one yet based on the pics I have obtained thus far from my equipment. <br>

I will look to a program in the future to correct/tweak individual photos down the road as I see fit. However if the program I get now will allow this in the future as well great.<br>

So that being asked. what recommendation for a program probably. <br>

Thanks Again all!!</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

ACR: Adobe Camera Raw, a raw file converter.

 

D2H: a Nikon dSLR

 

CSx: Adobe Creative Suite, a bundle of tools, not

just Lightroom. Was very expensive.

 

CC: Creative Cloud, Adobe's subscription service.

 

None of the freebies I use clutter up the PC with

junk. But be careful of the source. Some

download sites will try to sneak in adware or

change your browser home page and search engine.

 

Raw files usually look mushy and dull without

processing. When you open a Nikon raw file in

ViewNX2 you'll usually see the default in camera

JPEG editing choice. That is an editing choice,

one of many possibilities. Better or worse is

subjective.

[steve_howard4]

<p>Thanks. that makes better sense</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>Go with LR5 believe me it's miles ahead of DXO Pro I know I have it and never bother with anymore.</p>