Lightroom does a lovely job with RX100m3 RAW files. If they were not such plugins and apps would have died off years ago. The real question, and the real value in seeing ACR/LR next to the original set of comparisons, is to see if any of the plug-ins are $80 better than ACR/LR, for the style of photos being shot. yeah, ACR/LR noise reduction really does blow. I'm not actually saying ACR/LR is the best, just that for many it is more than sufficient, and a far cry from "blows." How about laziness, a willingness to forgo better results elsewhere for convenience and speed? If the noise reduction in ACR/Lr does blow, why have so many photographers said that since Adobe improved it, they no longer turn to plug-ins? Wouldn't that be the default that you are comparing the other options against? Noise reduction in ACR/Lightroom blows in comparison. Why not include Adobe Camera RAW in your noise reduction test? Neat Image produces results almost identical with great ease. Noiseware, the most capable of the group, is too much work to get right for each image. The other apps or plugins will have you doing a lot of work. I chose Neat Image because it is the only one that automatically analyses each image and gives great initial results. Tony MacAlpine, performing with Portnoy-Sheehan-MacAlpine-Sherinian at Cultuurpodium Boerderij in Zoetermeer (The Netherlands)īilly Sheehan (left) and Richie Kotzen (right), performing with The Winery Dogs at Hedon in Zwolle (The Netherlands) The four parts are in each image below are 1:1 crops of a 'bare' (no post processing or optimalisation) imported photograph using the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW.ĭave LaRue, performing with Flying Colors at 013 in Tilburg (The Netherlands) I couldn't get the old (32-bits?) plugin running on my machine and the added functionality and interface of Photo Ninja didn't appeal to me.īased on the images provided below (2054 x 2054 px), I want to ask your opinion on which noise reduction plugin you think gives the best result (reduce noise without suffering sharpness). I've excluded NoiseNinja from my 'test', since it's no longer available as a seperate PS/Lr plugin. To find out which noise reduction plugin for Photoshop CC 2014 and Lightroom 5.5 (on my MacBook Pro 13" Retina running OS X 10.9 Mavericks in 64-bit) suits me best, I've download and installed trail versions of four main players on the market: This causes a high level of noise on the photographs that need to be reduced to some extent. This is a quick test and you can have better result in all these software by fine tune settings.As a concert and live performance photographer I regularly shoot at (exreme) high ISO's. It is small in size, free, fast and seems to preserve detail better (You will see this after resize photo to hide away some noise) but unfortunately no batch processing in free community version. Personaly, I like NeatImage for batch process but BigMike is right that NoiseWare is pretty good software. I combine all 4 photo resized to 720x480 + UnSharp images here: Here is the link to larger (3086x2054) images: However, Helicon & NoiseWare must be paid to gain batch processing while NeatImage trial will limit number of photo in a batch. NeatImage: Slow but seems to produce smoother result Helicon: It blur image so easier for once off operation Please note this is quick lazy men setting because with little detail adjustment in frequency setting, NoiseWare actually turn out pretty good. NoiseWare v1.1b (Max Noise Level Adjustment & Suppression value) NeatImage v2.11 (Setting: 300D ISO1600 profile) I use one of my worst noise photo (ISO1600 for 301 Second) as test case. Some of people are wondering how it compare to other software so I run a quick test to see how each of 3 software I have perform. This is response to one of question on BigMike thread concern NoiseWare.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |