KevinT

Hello fellow UHH'ers...

My main focus in photography is Equine and during the winter months here in Ohio most of my photos are indoors during training sessions for horse and rider. The arena has very little light so I work in some very high iso ranges (1000- 1600) which of course gives a lot of noise.

Anyway, I have spent a lot of time these past few months working on and finding programs to Denoise the photos. The photos below were processed using Canon's DPP program for minor adjustments like exposure, and then in LR (4) to remove any chromatic aberration and any other minor adjustments. I then transfer the photo to PS (CS5) to denies. I separate the subject from the background so that I can adjust the noise separately at different levels. No other processing was done after this (at this time).

The photo was shot at ISO1600, F2.8, 1/500 (Shutter priority, auto aperture and auto ISO). The first photo is the original and the following 2 are the denoise versions using 2 different software packages (Topaz Denoise and Neat Image).

What I wold like is for all of you to tell me out of the 2 denoise ones, which one you like better. Also, as always, any comments and critiques of the photo overall is always welcome.

Thanks!

Original - straight from camera


Denoise #1


Denoise #2

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Denoise #1 is darker and has a better quality to the colors giving a sense of depth to horse and rider against the background.

KevinT

I may have posted this in the wrong section, not really sure. If I did I apologize!

--KevinT

GWR100 Loc: England

The section is fine as are the photos. I prefer No 2, less space behind the horse gives the image more impact. And considering the amount of defused light distraction in the back ground the exposure is fine. Really good image Kevin

Carolina Wings Loc: Flew from North Carolina to Pennsylvania

Hi Kevin...lovely Equine photo...I like the last photo for 2 reasons. The first reason is that it focuses more on the horse...the 2nd being that you want to leave more room in the front of the horse than behind. Another tip I'd like to pass along is when taking Equine photos you want to capture the action when their weight is on the hind quarters as opposed to the forehand. Nice job Kevin...I really liked the photo :thumbup:

gdwsr Loc: Northern California

Regarding the noise reduction Denoise 1 is clearly better (if UHH is showing them accurately). Denoise 2 has a hashmark patterning going on that, to me, is very irritating. When you get enough comments on it, let us know which is which.

Great shots, great crop.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

The first one is better..the second one has some weird artifacts.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Number 2 was done using Topaz and it's quite horrible and you know why....those appalling artifacts! Topaz can do better but that's best left for another time. Experiment with the settings.

Number one was done with Neat Image and if I may say so, not to the program's best advantage.

Try going to Advanced and select sharpen and denoise from the list.

Experiment and you will learn. Cheers, Rob.

P.S. you appear to have a number of hot pixels which tend to become more prominent at higher ISO and sharpened.

hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

Great looking horse, beautiful rider, good composition, not so good surroundings. Get them outside for a photo would be my choice, but #2 is the better.

Sallywho Loc: Wendell, NC

#1

AUminer Loc: Brandon, Ms

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bushpilot Loc: Minnesota

Denoise #1 is better, lots of artifacting going on in Denoise #2.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Adobes LR4 works easier and raw files have more to work with. You jpg image took 100% to reduce all the noise.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

The problem with excessive over processing as is very evident here is that most of the detail is wiped. Have a look at the tip of the whip...

KevinT

I want to thank everyone who responded, I got some really good feedback and suggestions. Denoising seems to be a difficult thing for me, it might just be that my eyesight is not that great anymore.

Anyway, winterrose had it correct (not surprising), Denoise #1 was done using Neat Image and Denoise #2 was done with Topaz Denoise.

Personally I think Neat Image was easier to work with, but just my opinion.

Again, thank you to all.