Reading mode: Light Dark

Neat Image and Ricoh?

Go to last post
D

Detlef J

Leading Member
Messages
812
Reaction score
0
Location
Bechstedt-Wagd, DE
Perhaps this would be a nice addition to Guys site.

I am wondering what settings other use with their Ricoh camera. Most of the time I do use standard "remove half noise".
So do you use special settings tweaked for each ISO level?
 
I don't know about Neat Image, but my noise reduction strategy is simple - remove most of the "Color Noise" leave the "Luminance Noise".

Why? Colors disturb my eyes (and most people's) while keeping Luminance retain more details.

Try it.

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/royiavital
 
Detlef J said:
Perhaps this would be a nice addition to Guys site.
I am wondering what settings other use with their Ricoh camera.
Most of the time I do use standard "remove half noise".
So do you use special settings tweaked for each ISO level?
Click to expand...
Yes, there's plenty to do on my site and improving the noise page is one.

Even though I bought the Pro version of Neat Image (for unlimited batch and 16 bit images) I find myself rarely using it or doing any noise reduction at all. I suppose that's because most shots are daylight, plus I've given up pixel peeping as a hobby.

When I do need it I usually use the freebie version of Noiseware as it's quick and easy and quick to experiment with.

If you can't see objectionable noise on a normal size print then there's no problem there to fix.

Regards............... Guy
 
I'm sure a lot of it comes down to personal taste, but with the free download softwares
Apart from Neat Image do any others have pre-sets for GRD?

I've always heard good things about Noise Ninja too,

what advice could you give as far as compatabilty with a GRD

cheers
--
Stan-o-Stan
 
I had GX100 files pass through both noise ninja and neat image, both in automatic profile...

It amazed me that neat image kept the image more crispy then Noisje Ninja did. With noise ninja I got ghost images, dark parts that blurred into the lighter parts next to it (e.g. text)
 
Thanks thats useful and interesting,

does anyone else have any experiances they can share?

cheers
--
Stan-o-Stan
 
I've tried Noise Ninja, Neat Image and Noiseware, which I believe are the main ones.

The interface on Noise Ninja is my favorite, with the ability to mask areas, apply USM at the same time and apply different levelsof noise reduction in different areas. Also there are many Ricoh profiles available from their website.

I've tried some default comparisons between Noise Ninja and Noiseware, and IMO preferred Ninja as it kept more detail. However there's very little in it (pixel peeping required)

I believe Neat Image has similar fuctions to Ninja, however IMO the interface isn't as nice looking. I haven't directly compared the two's results yet, but will do so tonight.

Personally I think all three packages are very good and any differences are probably just down to different default settings, which of course are fully adjustable. Demostration versions are available, so I suggest downloading them and playing around for yourself before making a purchase.
 
Do you think the free downloads are only partialy usable?

others have suggested the simplicity and functionality of the free versions is often good enough...

I will try them out myself but others experiance always helps see things more directly.

cheers
--
Stan-o-Stan
 
I shoot 400 ISO with my GX100.
I find careful use of Neat Image is brilliant with the processed images.

With maderate NI processing I have my 400 ISO images as good (to my eyes) as 100 ISO images.

I'm so confident about the results The GX100 is now the only camera I'm taking on our 5 week European holiday.
The 20D and bagfull of lenses is staying at home on the shelf.
--
Cheers
Tony
 
Stan-o-Stan said:
Do you think the free downloads are only partialy usable?
others have suggested the simplicity and functionality of the free
versions is often good enough...

I will try them out myself but others experiance always helps see
things more directly.

cheers
--
Stan-o-Stan
Click to expand...
In my experience of the free downloads, they tend to be fully functioning, but sabotage the final image in a way that allows you to view the result. e.g. place a grid or watermark over the photo.
 
I think that Neat Image and Noiseware impose no grids or watermarks, but limit the type of output to a high quality but lossy jpeg (no tiff, and no exif info preserved).
 
As promised I have taken a 100% crop of a very noisy ISO400 GX100 photo, then run it through default setting on Noise Ninja and Neat Image.

The difference is very dramatic, obviously NN takes a much more conservative approach.

Noise Ninja



Neat Image

 
I don't know what settings you used on the church shot in Neat Image but it looks way overcooked.

As mentioned in my earlier response, I can have noisy 400 ISO images looking as good as 100 ISO shots with NI.

If you use the plug-in version of NI, try using it in the Lightness channel in Lab mode rather than RGB. The results, just as sharpening in Photoshop, are far more subtle using that option.
--
Cheers
Tony
 
I used default settings from a fresh install on both packages. Obviously by default Neat Image is much more aggressive. However I'm sure when used properly NI can perform much more controlled NR. Therefore all you can conclude from this is that NN is better for a lazy beginner who just wants to press go.

When I get the chance I will tweak all the settings and see which one gives me the best results. I expect there will be very little between them.
IMO though NN does have a nicer interface and is easier to use.
 
Dan_Dare said:
When I get the chance I will tweak all the settings and see which
one gives me the best results. I expect there will be very little
between them.
IMO though NN does have a nicer interface and is easier to use.
Click to expand...
I've taken another 400ISO noisy GX100 image and run it through NI and NN again. This time I've spent longer playing around with the settings.

I hate to admit it, but I thing the NI result is slightly better, with more detail retained.

Noise Ninja



Neat Image

 
Certainly, my personal observations aside because they only relate to Neat Image, I've nerver seen a comparison between NN and NI where NN was concluded the winner. I may have only been reading one side of the story?
--
Cheers
Tony
 
Thanks,

this has been ineresting.

There's not much in it, to my opinion, only with some serious pixel peeping or

a very specific image that needed treatment would the difference become ultimate.

I wouldn't be surprised if when you factor in image variation and user ability either one could come out on top. Either way they both do a very similar job so I would say that user comfort would be a strong factor.

Please correct me if i'm wrong,

Cheers
--
Stan-o-Stan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top