Denoising programs ...

[W Pontius]

I find that Nik Define works very well, does not over-smooth, and has both automatic and manual functions, thus - allowing you to de-noise selectively !!! It also fits in well with the other Nik plugins such as Viveza 2 which is fantastic !!
--
W.Pontius

 

[filipkrolupper]

Hey, thanks. But sorry, these results are horrible. Btw I can clearly see some pattern there. Is is caused by Topaz or some other postprocessing? Filip

 

[filipkrolupper]

Yup, its standallone, the plugin will be released within 2 weeks or so.

 

[filipkrolupper]

Yea, I think that dNik software is probably the best one. But it is expensive, isnt it? Filip

 

[filipkrolupper]

Agree, but its not always possible, you know. Filip

 

[mailman88]

...I agree there.

 

[Gil Knutson]

There really are a number of programs that are designed to deal with noise. I have read lots of posts on many forums that praise most of them... some more than others. Noise Ninja gets a lot of positives, but so do others.

NN has various offerings from about $35 US to $80 US, depending on what you want.

As mentioned, it has a trial version.

You can also use some RAW developing programs that do pretty good jobs... Capture One and Dx0 come to mind.

I bought the Pro version of NN and I like it... it has a stand alone copy that allows you to run batches of pics. It does a good jog.

However, I bought Dx0 about two years later and find I have been using that almost exclusively for developing and handling of noise. It does pretty well what NN does, plus adds a lot more features. I got Dx0 when they had a really great sale... really haven't been sorry.

Still, you can't go wrong with NN... or any of the others mentioned. They all have their flag wavers and detractors.

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

 

[gingerbaker]

Noiseware community is free and is very easy to use. 80% of the time, it does a bang-up job.

I have also found that the new Adobe Camera RAW and Lightroom denoise modules are significantly improved over the previous versions and work quite well.

You can go crazy pixel peeping these programs, but for general smallish printing purposes, even the free programs work well enough. At least for me.
--
Gingerbaker

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

 

[blumarble]

Here's a comparison that I found interesting and useful:

http://www.prophotoshow.net/blog/2009/02/26/noise-reduction-shootout-straight-dope-comparisonreview/
It was last updated in April.

What I found particularly credible was that it concluded that some programs were better at processing some image types, but not all. Topaz Denoise came out on top in 4 of 8 samples, Noise Ninja and Noiseware tied for second with two each.

I haven't purchased one yet, but I'm trying out these three. They also have discount codes for most.

 

[gingerbaker]

I don't think this review included Adobe Camera Raw 6.1 noise reduction ( same as LR3)- which works pretty darn well (and you can't beat the workflow). Compared to ACR 6.1, it all seems to me to be a case of diminishing returns for most work.

I suppose if you have the One Great Picture That Unites Them All and you absolutely positively had to have the best NR the world can offer... but then, according to this article, you would have to know which program might work better for that particular image. Plus, own all the programs. Sigh.
--
Gingerbaker

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

 

[james laubscher]

I've tried Neat Image, Noiseware, Noise Ninja, LR 3 and DxO.

Same image tested on all of them. LR3 currently the best for Chroma noise reduction, closely followed by DxO for all round benefits.

For moderate noise reduction/cleanup, Noiseware is quick and easy.

--
jamesza

 

[Toermalijn]

I find that Nik Define works very well, does not over-smooth, and has both automatic and manual functions, thus - allowing you to de-noise selectively !!! It also fits in well with the other Nik plugins such as Viveza 2 which is fantastic !!
--
W.Pontius

You can also denoise selectively by making a selection or mask in photoshop, so that is not to hard to realise for any denoise plug-in.

 

[luotinen]

But I got an idea. Lets announce "denoising cup". I got two images:

one of them is artificial created just for my tests. The second one is common photo. So use your favorite program to get the best results, ok?

lets the battle begin

Here are the entries for Noise Ninja (35 USD) (default settings used):



(processing time 7.418 seconds)



(processing time 6.936 seconds)

 

[hwttdz]

Thoughts? I'd rather not immediately say what I'm using so as to not influence the responses overly much.

 

[luotinen]

Quite impressive result. You can usually leave more noise than you've chosen.

With that high setting, you're losing a little bit of detail (see the center of the flower for example). This only becomes evident when the image is viewed in 100%, so the optimum setting will depend on how the image will be used.

I'll take a closer look into that script and the related white paper later.

Thoughts? I'd rather not immediately say what I'm using so as to not influence the responses overly much.

 

[rinkos]

Hey, looking for the best denoising program, lets say upto 100 bucks. Any suggestion?

basically ....if u want to fiddle with spcifics...topaz denoise is the best....

but for ease of use..and a whole lot more than just RAW noise issues...i think LR3 is the best....

ive done some experimenting with all the known ones...i found it very good...

the only issue in LR3..is that u cant mask ( protect from noising ) certain areas you want..like eyes or mouth...

but still it will work magic on noise issues non of the others can handle with like extreme
artifacting...

ANYWAY PAY ATTENTION...TO COMPARE BETWEEN THEM YOU NEED THE REAL NOISE..THAT IS BANDING NOISE..ARTIFACTS AND SHADOW NOISE *

not the previous examples up ahead ..cause with them its very easy to handle...but the ones i mentioned are very tough to get without killing the shot...

 

[Robgo2]

Let me just throw in a personal opinion regarding noise removal. I think that many people feel that total or nearly total removal of noise is the ultimate goal. Most often, this results in softening of the image and loss of detail, regardless of which program is being used. It is much wiser to leave some noise in the image so as to preserve texture and detail. For the most part, low or even moderate levels of noise are not obtrusive in prints and certainly not on the web.

Rob