You choose which is better
Apr 29, 2013 01:06:20 #
KevinT wrote:
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.
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.
Neat Image does take a bit of getting used to in order to get the most from the program. Be aware that ANY noise suppression processing, by its very nature, takes the "edge" off the "grain" and consequently also smudges or obliterates all fine detail. Noise is the product of low level, random signals generated within the myriad light sensitive elements which form the image sensor. These signals are always present at a similar base, rather than relative, level however they become more evident at higher ISO because those higher ISOs are only the result of the higher amplification of the values read from the sensor by the image processing software.
As the image signal levels decrease due to the lower number of photons being read (low light), those non-desired quiescent noise signals begin to become more evident. In audio, (Hi Fi), similar unwanted noise was generated by the electronics and the nature of the phonograph and tape mediums. Clicks and pops, hum, rumble, tape hiss, etc. Just as hiss suppression also reduced high frequency response and rumble reduction reduced the deep lows in the musical reproduction, The bottom line is that the reduction of noise always results in an equal reduction of "apparent" detail. Rob.
Apr 29, 2013 13:20:40 #
KevinT wrote:
Hello fellow UHH'ers... br br My main focus in ph... (show quote)
Definitely #2. Colors are better and composition is as well.
Apr 29, 2013 15:19:35 #
winterrose wrote:
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...
It would be better if I had the original raw image to work with. It's a known fact that jpgs don't work all that well in raw editing programs but this is the best that can be done to get rid of the noise in this jpg image.
Apr 30, 2013 10:47:56 #
My weapon of choice for denonising would be Dfine and unless I had no option, always on the original RAW file. Denoising a JPG is a bit like trying to knit fog!
I think #1 is better.
=:~)
I think #1 is better.
=:~)
May 4, 2013 21:10:52 #
Number 1 has better color. In number 2, you can see the rider's face better. Maybe you could sharpen number one to bring out the face.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.