And the winning de-noise app is.... (Page 2): Rockwell's review doesn't mention (include) the text 'IBIS' nor 'stab', that would seem conclusive ... :sm02: But, it seems the 2019 age...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

R.G. wrote:

This is from the Fuji site specification page:-

Image Stabilizer - Supported with OIS type lenses

So it looks like OIS only.

Rockwell's review doesn't mention (include) the text 'IBIS' nor 'stab', that would seem conclusive ...

But, it seems the 2019 age of the review is the missing topic, where Stabilization = None is explicitly stated in the subsequent X-T3 review.

rwm283main Loc: Terryville, CT

CHG_CANON wrote:

Alas, when I check the specs, I'm finding "No" in stabilization for this X-T2 model.

There is no IBIS on the X-T2. My X-T4 has IBIS.

The lens has stabilization.

I totally agree with you about getting the photo as good as it can by using in camera settings, but there comes a time when this just doesn’t work for one reason or another. So, hypothetically speaking I’m at this point with my image. The cabin image is probably a better image to work with.

I’ve used the noise reduction tools in LR and Capture One with somewhat acceptable results with an overall softening of the image.

The stuff I’m seeing out there today appears to work wonders when you run into a situation when all else fails.

I will give Topaz Labs DeNoise AI a try. Seems pretty popular.

Thanks again for all your suggestions.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

rwm283main wrote:

....I much appreciate any and all suggestions and for taking the time to work the image....

If you keep the sharpening to the edges as already described it allows more denoise to be added. One of the things that makes too much denoise undesirable is its softening effect on the edges. Edge-based sharpening counteracts that effect.

Normally contrast isn't something you'd want a lot of in a noisy image because it aggravates noise. However, if relatively generous amounts of denoise can be added as described above, generous amounts of contrast can be added - which has the benefit of increasing the perceived sharpness of the image.

Editing is best done by eye with normal viewing distance in mind. This image will look bad only if you start pixel-peeping.
.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

R.G. wrote:

If you keep the sharpening to the edges as already... (show quote)

I think this is a better, overall, image in the larger view. Alas, the luminance noise has been replaced with JPEG anomalies. Some of this is an issue of a JPEG being presented for more processing, where the 'test' must be performed on the original RAW.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

rwm283main wrote:

I shot this photo at dusk today with an ISO settin... (show quote)

I see no problem with it as is. Why do you need denoise? Just because everyone says that you need denoise when using hi ISO, doesn't mean that it's true in every case!

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Grahame wrote:

Whilst 'being scientific' with a test as you suggest is an option, it's problem is that you are photographing something you never will under normal circumstances.

Defining what is acceptable to you in that case will be far more difficult than using something we commonly photograph and look at.

Grahame said, "it's problem is that you are photographing something you never will under normal circumstances."
Absolutely true and that is why photographing a plain surface with hi ISO is the better test of the software.

The op question by rwm283main was "I'm at a point that depending on what works best for me I might just spring for a denoise plug-in for LR, PS or just a stand-alone software." The "for me" part is determine by price and ease of use, and the side by side results. The comparison of results is best done by doubling the width of the image field and laying the second net to the first and then flattening.

Why not make the comparison Controlled rather than a complicated photo.... habit... antiscience???

PS: Color... at Walmart paint department I picked up free squares of black, white, and various colors.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

CHG_CANON wrote:

....Some of this is an issue of a JPEG being presented for more processing, where the 'test' must be performed on the original RAW.

Indeed, for the purposes of comparison, jpeg processing just muddies the waters (and makes it harder to get optimum results).

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

R.G. wrote:

Indeed, for the purposes of comparison, jpeg processing just muddies the waters (and makes it harder to get optimum results).

Perhaps, but if processing raw, the image resulting is used over and over for the test. So, why is processed raw better?

How will JPEG muddy the water, if water means image? Is so what does muddy mean... confuse? If so How?

Do you mean JPEG photo with noise processed by different software will show confusing results? A pixel is a pixel... and it is just an object some of them are random noise. But the starting image for the test is the same image over and over again.

Those noise pixels are the ones that we want to see if the software recognizes them and eliminates them. Like in medications we take, side effects are also important, lie blur for instance.

BE SCIENTIFIC

Grahame Loc: Fiji

dpullum wrote:

Grahame said, "it's problem is that you are p... (show quote)

You can undertake a "controlled" comparison using the same image with various software options.

Photographing a plain black/white/coloured surface at high ISO will enable you to play with removing the noise with the software's your are testing and they will all be able to do that from zero to total removal.

But, what that testing method is not going to reveal is 'real world' evidence of how that software has affected the fine hairs hanging over a subjects face when it is viewed at the size required for your intended output use.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

dpullum wrote:

Perhaps, but if processing raw, the image resultin... (show quote)

Artefacts is just one of the reasons why jpegs are inferior to raw when it comes to processing. But on that subject, jpeg artefacts don't respond to sharpening and denoise the same way that real noise does.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

R.G. wrote:

If you keep the sharpening to the edges as already... (show quote)

A shot of incomparable serenity 🤎🤎🔥🤎🤎

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

R.G. wrote:

AI denoise does a very good job if the noise is ex... (show quote)

Great whimsical shot of someone I think I went out with at one time 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

R.G. Loc: Scotland

joecichjr wrote:

Great whimsical shot of someone I think I went out with at one time 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

We've all been there

.

rwm283main Loc: Terryville, CT

Well, this post certainly didn’t turn out as I had expected but I did receive a number of helpful comments.
Paul, I took a look at the two UHH links you provided on noise reduction and sharpness adjustments using LR and found them very helpful.

I think after a number of drinks that whimsical character might look quite attractive 😂, so be careful.

Thanks again everyone for viewing and commenting.

Rich

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rwm283main wrote:

Well, this post certainly didn’t turn out as I had expected but I did receive a number of helpful comments.
Paul, I took a look at the two UHH links you provided on noise reduction and sharpness adjustments using LR and found them very helpful.

I think after a number of drinks that whimsical character might look quite attractive 😂, so be careful.

Thanks again everyone for viewing and commenting.

Rich

Hooray!