Reducing noise and increasing image sharpness!! A tip that works for me using faststone or whatever post process editor. I find that alot of the images on uhh are too large 5mp etc.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

A tip that works for me using faststone or whatever post process editor. I find that alot of the images on uhh are too large 5mp
etc. and so i reduce them in my post processing program to 1280x1024 size and this reduces the noise quite a bit and sharpens up the image. The image just looks great after i do this!! Try it!! You"ll like!!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

redfordl wrote:

A tip that works for me using faststone or whatever post process editor. I find that alot of the images on uhh are too large 5mp
etc. and so i reduce them in my post processing program to 1280x1024 size and this reduces the noise quite a bit and sharpens up the image. The image just looks great after i do this!! Try it!! You"ll like!!

Significantly reduce the resolution of my 35mb raw images to under 5mb jpegs just to reduce noise? NO, I don't think so. I reduce any noise successfully with DXO Photolab PRIME noise reduction.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

redfordl wrote:

A tip that works for me using faststone or whatever post process editor. I find that alot of the images on uhh are too large 5mp
etc. and so i reduce them in my post processing program to 1280x1024 size and this reduces the noise quite a bit and sharpens up the image. The image just looks great after i do this!! Try it!! You"ll like!!

It may look better viewed on a screen, but you won't be able to make a good print 8x10 or larger. I hope you are reducing a copy and not the original.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

5 mp is too large??? Hey, I've invested beeellions to get more resolutionness.

Seriously, why would you want to reduce an image to 1.3 megapixels? My first digital camera shot 1.1 mp and it was OK for emails and 4 X 6 prints. Reverting to that size would be a 20 year step backwards!

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

Let me clarify myself as i would only do this reduction for screen viewing on the uhh site,other web sites etc. and not for print!! Thanks!!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

redfordl wrote:

Let me clarify myself as i would only do this reduction for screen viewing on the uhh site,other web sites etc. and not for print!! Thanks!!

Since I use a 28in 4K monitor with a native resolution of 4096 × 2160 pixels the size of the images you suggested would still be unacceptably low resolution. The resolution of your images would be about 1.3 mp. My monitor is capable of a resolution of approximately 8.8mp, or almost seven times the resolution of your images. I would use 1.3 megapixel images for low-resolution purposes only, dependent on the file size in megabytes.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

mwsilvers wrote:

Significantly reduce the resolution of my 35mb raw images to under 5mb jpegs just to reduce noise? NO, I don't think so. I reduce any noise successfully with DXO Photolab PRIME noise reduction.

Thank you.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

msilver, considering the native resolution of my monitor is 1920x1080 or 2.07 mp should i keep my images when posting on uhh at about 2.07 mps. Thanks>

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

mwsilvers wrote:

Significantly reduce the resolution of my 35mb raw images to under 5mb jpegs just to reduce noise? NO, I don't think so. I reduce any noise successfully with DXO Photolab PRIME noise reduction.

Topaz "De Noise" here.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

warrior wrote:

Topaz "De Noise" here.

I understand Topaz is a great tool, although I've never used it myself. Since I use DXO Photolab as my raw processor I use the built-in noise functionality. I don't have a need to go to third party tool.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

mwsilvers wrote:

I understand Topaz is a great tool, although I've never used it myself. Since I use DXO Photolab as my raw processor I use the built-in noise functionality. I don't have a need to go to third party tool.

Wow! OMG!

How much resolution do people think you need? For large and even larger prints - 8-12 mb is more than enough. A 36 mp or even a 45 mp camera won't make a big print look better, unless you are OCD and need to examine the print at a distance of 12" with a loupe to see how the dot pattern was sprayed onto the paper by the printer. That is completely unnecessary.

for a 24x36, or even a 40x60 you don't really need more than 6-8 mp. The extra mp is great when you use excellent lenses that have high acuity and you need to crop a bit. Then it comes in handy.

I've printed this image, which is 2208x2619, or 5.8 mp, to 24x36 and sold 8 prints with absolutely no complaints about image resolution or softness.

Resolution needed for printing is probably the most misunderstood item in photography. At a viewing distance of 4ft, this image looks clean and noise free, with tons of fine detail.

Of course, if you are a PPP - Pathological Pixel Peeper - you will never have too little noise or too much resolution. I am glad that those that buy my stuff aren't like that. . .

(Download)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Gene51 wrote:

Wow! OMG! br br How much resolution do people th... (show quote)

The OP is talking about reducing the image to 1.3 mp, not really enough for a good 8x10. But if you had read the rest of the responses, of which there aren't that many, you would have seen he's talking about viewing onscreen and not printing.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Gene51 wrote:

Wow! OMG! br br How much resolution do people th... (show quote)

Gene, I'm confused by what you've written. Did you read all the posts? The OP was only talking about displaying an image on a monitor, at 1280x1024 resolution, or 1.3mp. I suggested that on a 28-inch 4k monitor the resolution is on the low side.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

mwsilvers wrote:

Gene, I'm confused by what you've written. Did you read all the posts? The OP was only talking about displaying an image on a monitor, at 1280x1024 resolution, or 1.3mp. I suggested that on a 28-inch 4k monitor the resolution is on the low side.

The OP has a great point - downsampling definitely does great things for image quality. Here it is at 1280x1079 - viewing it at a distance of 4 ft from a 24" HD display you really can't see a difference.

Now, on a 4K display the image will be correspondingly smaller. So if you expand the image to fill the screen, of course it won't look as good, up close, but at a greater distance, the difference won't be as noticeable.

How does the 1280x1079 Painted Bunting look on your 28" 4K display?

(Download)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Gene51 wrote:

The OP has a great point - downsampling definitely... (show quote)

It's not full screen at 100% but even at 200% it looks good.