Hi,
I just downloaded the demo version of Neat Image. The on line tutorial is pretty straight forward and I'm trying it out on a cloudscape with lots of jpeg artifacts in it, as most sky shots seem to get. It looks like it is really killing off the cloud details, though. I moved some of the sliders around, but was unable to preserve the cloud details without reintroducing the jpeg artifacts.
Any inside "been there learned that" info would be much appreciated!
Thanks,
JD Anderson
flick on the sharpen boxes at the bottom and try sliding the settings around on that a bit. Should help with details. As far as not losing detail, try to grab your bits to "build data" with in the most empty areas available. :)
I use the biggest area I can find with NO detail to set the noise profile, and make sure to run the fine tune and auto-complete.
On the filter setting tab, I usually find that setting the reduction amounts to 75% for high, 65% for med and 55% for low produces much better results than at 100%. The requred amounts can vary of course depending on the amount of noise in the image, and the desired final look. I usually want slight residual noise, to avoid that "plastic" look.
I use NO sharpening in NeatImage, I do that later using multi-pass technique.
Sometimes in shots with lots of plan sky i get all the noise away.... and then let it rip... but the final product has what look like big compression bands curved across... i usually have to go back and tone it down alot.. introducing the noise back in... any sugestions
Thanks for all of the input. I'll try your advice, especially downloading the device profiles. There are two for the Sony DSC F717 at the Neat Image website.
In the meantime, here is my first effort. I applied it to the whole image, then copied that file as a new layer over the original. I then erased the 'neat image' layer over the rock formations to get rid of any detail loss in the rocks. The sky is much better without the artifacts. Thanks again for your help. I'll keep playing and figure out best practices...
WITHOUT NEAT IMAGE
//www.pbase.com/image/20143656
Smellyfish, I think you'll have to be careful with Neat Image not to get results simlar to Photoshop's Smart Blur filter. Some of the grass in your treated shot has that appearance of being over-softened. The sky is a vast improvement though, so it'll be really useful where spot-editing is not an issue.
I like the unfiltered much better. The filtered version removes a lot of the detail from the important rocks. It is a faboulous photo! Perhaps you can overlay the filtered version on top of the unfiltered and erase everything filtered but the sky.
Once you get good with NI it will not remove detail from areas you don't want it to.
Remember. Take lots of samples or non desript areas, Fine tune. Check a small sample image and correct the sliders accordingly.
If worst comes to worst create a layer in PS, paste in the NI image and erase out the areas you don't want NI'd. Like in your shot sample only use the sky. Even though this is a pretty easy shot to get the sky only done.... Of course you couldn't use the image here but we live in a world where there is editing allowed. Noise is a camera issue not a photographer one.... Dave
If worst comes to worst create a layer in PS, paste in the NI image and erase out the areas you don't want NI'd. Like in your shot sample only use the sky.
A better practice is actually to dupe the layer, then add a layer mask and airbrush the mask instead. This avoids actual loss of data. :)
If worst comes to worst create a layer in PS, paste in the NI image and erase out the areas you don't want NI'd. Like in your shot sample only use the sky.
A better practice is actually to dupe the layer, then add a layer mask and airbrush the mask instead. This avoids actual loss of data. :)
Hi John, I would love to learn that technique. I just used Neat Image on this Mt. Rainier, because the sky was very grainy. I layered the NI version over the original and erased all but the sky from the NI version.
he prolly means data loss as in.. you can recover what you erased :) With a mask, it's easy, you just repaint in the mask in the opposite color (if you were using black, use white to "bring back" what you erased).. but if you're actually *erasing* from a layer, there's no unerase, unless you undo.. and that doesn't work after you've saved the file :). Sure you could load up the original, but it's far easier to use masks :)
For something this simple I always erase. I save layer masks for the more intricate and defined work. Color augments, area sharpening, doubling, certain cloning. Something like a sky in a landscape shot I never bother, it takes a minute or two and I don't think I have ever had to go back to change it at a later date - Like I said, many ways of doing it... Dave
