Noise reduction software usage

[UrsaMajor]

I am in the process of attempting to learn how to properly choose and use noise reduction software. In most cases, I have not had much need for this with the types of pictures I take, and the circumstances under which I am shooting. I've also tended to just not use images where getting the image I wanted required working hard to pull detail out of the shadows without creating excessive noise.

However, I recently took an A700 grab-shot landscape image (posted here in the thread at http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =16&t=2378) for which I have personal reasons to want to do a decent quality job on detail in some of the shadows. I'm making a large print for myself, and I know what I want the scene to look like - if possible. The noise reduction in Lightroom/ACR/CS3 does not get me where I want to go, no matter what combination of noise reduction & sharpening I try. I've had better - but still not completely satisfying - results with the IDC software and other programs such as RAW Therapee and Picture Window (my editor until I started using Lightroom). The best results so far have come from using the noise reduction/sharpening in Picture Window, but I suspect that is because of my familiarity with the program.

I have downloaded the demo versions of noise reduction software such as Noise Ninja, Noiseware, and Neat Image, and these seem to be capable of better results than Lightroom/ACR, but I can still do better with what is built into Picture Window. Given the reputations of these specialized programs - and the results that I have seen in pictures that Don has posted - this leads me to the conclusion that my issue with these programs is operator ignorance - mine.

Keeping in mind that I probably do not know enough to even ask the right questions, I would appreciate any suggestions and tips on the effective and efficient usage of noise reduction software. Also, from attempting to research this subject on the web I get the impression that all of the major programs are capable of essentially equivalent end results in skilled hands. If that is accurate, I would tend to prefer a program that is well-integrated with Lightroom, just for future convenience. However, if you feel that a given program is capable of superior results, or if it is much more intuitive to use with good results, integration with Lightroom/ACR/CS3 is of secondary importance.

To the extent to which it is practical, I would appreciate step-by-step "cookbook" suggestions for using such software. I am one of the people who learn much better by actually doing a task, and if I am able to follow in your footsteps I'll start to grasp the concepts more quickly.

Thanks in advance for the help, and my apologies for the long-winded request.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[harveyzone]

To the extent to which it is practical, I would appreciate step-by-step "cookbook" suggestions for using such software. I am one of the people who learn much better by actually doing a task, and if I am able to follow in your footsteps I'll start to grasp the concepts more quickly.

Here is what I tend to do for quick simple noise reduction...
1) Duplicate the layer for noise reduction and leave the original in tact.
2) Apply noise reduction to the second layer. I usually use one of the default settings, although I have a couple of custom ones that I have set up for specific jobs in the past. At this stage I am not too concerned if I over do noise reduction a bit (as some of the defaults do).
3) Mask areas where I want noise reduction to have less effect. Big flat areas of colour usually need more than areas where there is more detail. Also, as noise normally is in the darker areas I often take a copy of the original image, paste it into the layer mask, invert it, apply a gaussian blur to it, and then play with levels on it. This has the effect of applying lots of NR on the darker/shadowed areas, and little on the highlights. This is not foolproof, but it gives a fairly good and very quick start point for more acurate masking if required.
4) Finally I pull back opacity on the NR layer to let the original show through if required.

I use Noiseware, but I have tried the demos of the "big 3" and all seem to do a decent job. I settled on Noiseware as I had a slight preference the final results and I prefered the interface/workflow, but this is largely personal.

It seems to work for me, but feel free to pick holes in my workflow or suggest better ways of doing it.

Incidently, if anyone can design an action to do this automatically I would apreciate it. I have never managed to get the layer mask paste/invert/blur bit to work correctly.

[UrsaMajor]

Tom, please post the raws of a couple images that you want to work with, and the final output images (the actual size you need) that you came up with. I will be happy to take a run at a couple images, but fair warning, I use Neat Image which is a program that sorta relies heavily on previously built noise profiles. The more top quality profiles you have of different images shot under different conditions, the better the program gets. On top of that you do need some practice and experience with the program on different files, and until you get that, you will be smashing a bunch of detail while making soft plastic looking images.

I understand that my initial efforts will fall far short of the possibilities. It has been that way for me with everything in life, but I have found that with a lot of practice - and especially with tips from people who know what they are doing - I can eventually become reasonably competent at anything I am willing to work at. Generally not at a professional level, but good enough for my purposes - if I really work at it.

As far as the the contrasty image in your link goes...we will need to see what sort of data is available in the Raw file. If you need a place to put the super large raw files and final JPGs I can help you out with that.

Thanks for the offer. I do not have any on-line file storage - which is probably something I should look into - and this specific image file is from my A700, so this would be a help to me.

I am making no guarantees as some images are too muddy in the shadows to do much with...ETTR can help with that somewhat, but if too much data is gone already it is gone for good.

I understand that, and I expect that part of my learning process will be being able to judge whether or not more can be done than I have been able to do. I assume that I have not approached the limits of what can be done with this image, but that is primarily because I have just started to attempt to learn what can and cannot be done with noise reduction and sharpening software.

Anyway, please post your results, or a few 100% crops of the results, and the raw files, and also give me an idea of what you are expecting from the camera and I will give the files a go. If they can be significantly improved I will post the results and the associated steps.

Will do. I doubt that I could post a large enough file here, and I don't have an on-line image file account to which I can send you, so I assume that the best way to do this is probably to send you the files via something like "yousendit.com". Would that be the best way, or would you suggest another means?

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Will do. I doubt that I could post a large enough file here, and I don't have an on-line image file account to which I can send you, so I assume that the best way to do this is probably to send you the files via something like "yousendit.com". Would that be the best way, or would you suggest another means?

1024px is the limit here. I suppose any of the services that do large file support will work for a few files. I can set up a password based file storage directory on one of my servers for temporary storage of files if alpha users will make use of it.

OK, fast-forward... I have received a few files from Tom which included his edited efforts and I will now make a few comments.

-Sonolta

Don, are you saying that you received that file from me, or are you saying that this is the type of comments that you would be expecting to make?

I would not be offended if the latter is the case, as I freely confess that I am on the early part of the learning curve and suspect that I may have made errors in a number of areas in what I have been doing up to now. However - if you actually received that file from someone, it was not from me, as I have yet to send you anything, and I do not recognize the image that you posted as coming from anything I have posted anywhere.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Please let us know when you have your stuff available.

-Sonolta

I was not certain what address would be the best to use, so I sent you two files via YouSendIt.com at your RockRiverFootball address. The first message should provide a link to a virgin copy of the A700 RAW file. The second message should provide a link to a full-sized JPG file that is the most satisfactory result I have obtained to date. It comes the closest to the way that I remember the scene looking when I took the picture, and it also brings out the riverboat in the lower left portion of the image and some of the boat sheds under the bridge - both of which were visible to my eyes at the time, and are an integral part of a typical river scene from my childhood.

My reasons for working on this image are entirely sentimental. It captures a scene on the river in the city in which I grew up - one which I have visited only occasionally since moving to California decades ago. My goal - if possible - is to be able to get a decent 20x30 inch print from this that I can hang on the wall of my study. I recognize that the large difference between the bright and dark areas may present an insurmountable barrier, but I'll always kick myself if I don't try. I think that the JPG I sent is getting close to an image that will meet my personal desires, but I would prefer to do a better job than I think my current skill level is capable of achieving.

Thanks again for offering to provide guidance.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

I have received the files but I have company in-town for the holidays so I will get to your image as soon as the holiday has passed.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the note. I appreciate the help and am not in any rush. In my world, family always comes before other activity, so I understand completely. Have a great holiday!

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Hello Don,

Have you had a chance to look at that image to see if you think that there is room for much improvement?

I realize that the large dynamic range between the shadows and the sunset sky probably creates some severe restrictions on what can be done, but I have no feel for whether or not there is much chance for getting significantly more out of the image than I have already done.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Please resend the files as the download link has expired and I have cleaned my drives of temporary files. I must admit that this thread completely slipped my mind and I do apologize. Please do resend the files because I am anxious to see what can be done. If you send the files tonight I will be able to post tonight.

I sent two files to you at your RockRiverFootball address via YouSendIt.com. As is probably obvious, one of them is the original RAW file and the other is a full-sized JPG that is the closest I have been able to come to capturing the scene as it was in person and as I would like it to print. It does bring out the riverboat on the left side of the image, and the boat sheds under the bridge, which are both a standard part of a river scene there. For a print that is for my own consumption, I think that I can live with what I have been able to get out of the file myself, but I would really kick myself if I did not investigate whether a better image can be obtained.

Any help you can provide will be appreciated.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Hi Tom, just a few comments before I post some samples.

1. A very difficult image to NR.
2. Better exposed shadows in the first place would yield a better result.
3. I applied simple NR to your JPG and it makes a big difference but it is not the best result that can be yielded.

. . . .

8. If you want me to remove the raw or full size file links from this forum post just say the word.

Here we go...

The ARW:

http://www.minoltaphotos.com/notme/tom/700292.ARW

Tom's Edit:

http://www.minoltaphotos.com/notme/tom/700292.JPG

My NR version of Tom's Edit:

http://www.minoltaphotos.com/notme/tom/ ... or-Tom.jpg


It's fairly easy to select out a few elements if you wanted to only apply NR to say the sky, the trees, and the water. If you were to do this you could make the sky and water glassy smooth while leaving a bit more detail in the structures. I tried a few different things on this one but the bottom line on this one is how does it look printed at 30 inches. Well, IMHO I would trade a bit of distant detail and a even a touch of softness to get rid of some of the noise because without eliminating a good portion of the noise in that one you are going to end up with a fairly speckled/mottled 30 inch print.

Again, this is just a single NI NR pass on the your full JPG w/no sharpening applied using almost default NI settings. No other adjustments were made to the image and a touch of contrast adj would help to 'equalize' the filtered results. Reworking the image fom raw, and applying selective (localized) NR and sharpening on specific areas of the image would yield an even smoother and more detailed result. That said, for a couple minute NR job on your JPG NI has done relatively well here.

Hope that gives you a bit of an idea on what areas of the image can be improved relatively easily.

Hi Don,

Thank you very much for your efforts. As I suspected, my own attempt fell well short of what can be done by someone with skill and experience.
In reply to a couple of your points above:

1. I had the feeling that pulling detail out of the image while avoiding noise would be difficult because of the large dynamic range. It was certainly that way for me, but I was not positive that it would be as much of a challenge for someone with experience.

2. I took a half dozen shots at different exposures in an attempt to find the optimum one that would minimize the effects of that large range, and hopefully get some detail in the shadows without losing the highlights. The one that I chose was not great, but it appeared to be the best compromise of all of those. If I had known that this image was going to come along, I would have brought my tripod to allow combining different exposures to get the benefit of HDR software. However this was a completely unplanned image that I saw when I came out of a restaurant after dinner, and I did not have a tripod with me.

3. You may not consider it the best result that could be obtained, but it is visibly better than what I had done. I can see that if I expect to ever deal with an image like this in the future, I need to learn how to use dedicated NR software, and will need to practice with it until I am capable of using it with some degree of competence. I am well aware that results obtained through the use of a tool come from the skill of the user, not just the tool itself, but you have certainly been a good salesman here for Neat Image.

. . .

8. No problem. Actually, I get an error message when I attempt to access the entire file as tweaked by you - and your link to my own JPG also gives an error message. Are the links correct?

Judging from what you have posted, I think I may go ahead and get a print from the file that you created. From the crops you posted, it looks as if that file might give me a print that would be very acceptable for the wall of my study. If I ever reach the point that I feel that my own skill at noise reduction has improved enough to get a better result with some hours of work, I'll revisit this image and see if I really can do better.

Thanks again for everything.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Hi Tom, the links to the large files are now working. Yes, NI is a great tool that I and others have been using for many years and I could not operate without using it or another similar top NR program.

Glad to be of service and happy shooting to you, Tom.

-Sonolta

Hi Don,

Thanks again. I downloaded your edit of my file and then uploaded it to Adorama for a 20x30 print, using their profile for poster lustre paper to create the printer file in Lightroom. I'm quite curious to see how that print turns out - for several reasons.

One reason is that in all of my color-managed software, the image for the printer looks like the one you posted. However, in a viewer that is not color-managed, the printer file has a very strong purple tint. I've never seen such a large difference in my (admittedly limited) experience. Naturally, based on Pako's recommendation I checked the option to have the folks at Adorama inspect the image, but there is nothing like skin tone in the image against which they can judge, so I don't see how they would know that the purple is not supposed to be there.

Of course, if color management works as it is supposed to do, what comes out of their machine will look like the screen image in my color managed applications. I'm just fretting because of the large difference that printer profile seems to make. Now you see why I have never had any illusions about whether or not I would be able to make a living with a camera - I'm definitely better off having chosen engineering many decades ago.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[Birma]

Very informative and useful thread guys - one for my bookmarks. Thanks very much.

[stevecim]

Tom, How did the print look?

[UrsaMajor]

Tom, How did the print look?

Hi Steve,

I don't know yet. According to an e-mail from Adorama, it was mailed to me on Tuesday, so I should get it soon. (I'm on the West Coast of the US - literally - and Adorama is on the East Coast, so it has about 4500 km to travel.) Since you asked, I'll post a comment here when the print arrives.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Tom, How did the print look?

On an overall basis the print comes very close to what I wanted, and I am planning to hang it on the wall in its current form. I may go back at some later time and see if I can do a better job with the post-processing, but at the moment I am going to adhere to the old saying, "Better is the enemy of good enough!"

To be clear about the reasons for the above statement - the noise reduction that Don did on the file gave me a 30x45 cm print that is completely acceptable in regard to noise, and the color of the print from Adorama is as I remember the actual scene. (I said above that the image being sent to the Adorama printer had a lot of erroneous purple in it when I applied their printer profile and looked at the image in a non-color-managed viewer. The print has none of that false purple, so the color management system at Adorama appears to have functioned as it is intended to work.)

The primary area in which I will attempt to improve the print in the future will be the image brightness. I knew when I started that a reflective print will not match the brightness of the computer screen, but I did not allow quite enough for that. In daylight the shadow areas of the print are fine, but under artificial lighting at night they tend to get a little too dark and lose some of the image that I would like to keep visible. That is completely separate from the issue that started this thread, and I mention it only to show how much more I have to learn.

With best wishes,
- Tom -