reducing noise and sharpening by painting??
Larry Samwells
but here's what I need to do:
The picture I have is of a landscape (basically trees, water and sky), but
it has two shortcomings: excessive noise and lack of sharpness. For the
noise, I have tried the various blurs of CS as well as turned to programs
like Neat Image, etc, but the noise is enough that if removed to make the
picture look good, I am left with an "oil painting" type result. The noise
already present means that I can't really sharpen the picture without more
noise as a result. Recently, I came across some information suggesting that
I could carefully repaint the picture and because of the repainting process,
the noise would be reduced. I have been attempting this for a week now
using the various brushes and settings, but the transition between fine
details is too sharp and the paint itself leaves the impression of a bit of
oil painting. I think this method shows a lot of potential though and, even
though it looks like it's going to take a lot of time, I *think* if I can
learn a better technique, the end result might be astonishing. I'd just
like to mention that I have tried blurring the edges of freshly painted
areas as well as applying the paint in very small opacity in many layers.
There's still too much smoothness and the especially the edges are too
sharp. I want the repainting to be subtle, like as if the original picture
was taken under perfect conditions. Am I asking too much, or is it possible
and where can I find tips on this technique and a better method than the one
I have been using?
Thank you in advance for any responses,
Larry Samwells
broga
The last time somebody posted a similar message a few people regarded it as
a challenge and had a go at it
--
www.micromountain.com
"Larry Samwells" <cz@y.z> wrote in message
news:eo0Hd.3590$Rs....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Clyde
Ah, starting from a bad picture and trying to make it good. That's
always a tough one.
I think about the only thing you can do is play around in Neat Image
some more. I don't have that, but I'm sure my Noise Ninja works much the
same. For those really noisy picture that I get (I have one camera that
is very bad at high ISOs), you may only want to get rid of some of the
noise. I get NN to find the noise and then I adjust the sliders to get
rid of a much as possible WITHOUT getting that painterly effect. Usually
that doesn't get rid of all the noise.
Then again, the human eye can usually handle some noise. I think back to
all that Ilford Delta 3200 film that I shot in the past. It sure was
grainy, but we lived with it. So, your picture is likely to be more
usable with some noise than it would be looking like an oil painting.
Of course, you could really make it look like a painting and go with the
flow. Dig out your Corel Painter and have fun. There are ways in PS too.
Clyde
Larry Samwells
"broga" <ian@-remove-to-email-micromountain.com> wrote in message
news:csj8ng$fet$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Could you post a copy of the photo on the web somewhere?
> The last time somebody posted a similar message a few people regarded it
as
> a challenge and had a go at it
Unfortunately, I can't post the photo but I appreciate your offer :).
Larry
Larry Samwells
"Clyde" <cl...@world.comedy> wrote in message
news:tb-dnfxgueb...@comcast.com...
I have both NN and Neat Image as well. Both offer the ability to create a
noise sample for the camera used utilizing a checkerboard color pattern
with the camera at the same exposure settings as when I took the pic. I
haven't done this, but it would require quite a bit of effort as the images
are already "stacked" to help reduce the noise already there. I suppose I
could take 15 or so images to be used as noise prints for NN or Neat Image.
But my big question is: is a custom noise print created this way worth the
effort? Would it in fact filter better than just using a sample from the
same image like I'm doing now? If it is worth the effort and would really
help reduce the noise without creating artifacts, I'm willing to try but
only as a last resort because it will be difficult to recreate the same
exposure settings in the camera.
Larry
Vladimir Misev
larry, very good tool for reducing a noise is a kodak digital gem
plugin for PS, but is expensive. Another (even more expensive :( ),
is LaserSoft SilverFast DCPro Studio / GANE filter (DCPro is really
amazing sw). however, what you can do for free is to try next:
in photoshop, use noise/despeckle, and then edit/fade despeckle.
hope this will help.
regards,
vladimir
bmoag
done this so far? Often sharpness and noise issues seen on the monitor when
you are concentrating on enlarged details are really not so problematic in
the final print.
Jean...@att.net
Products like Neat Image and Noise Ninja are less than $100, and do a
reasonable good job. Do the Kodak and Silverfast products do a better
job? How much more expensive are they?
Clyde
>>Ah, starting from a bad picture and trying to make it good. That's
>>always a tough one.
>>
>>I think about the only thing you can do is play around in Neat Image
>>some more. I don't have that, but I'm sure my Noise Ninja works much the
>>same. For those really noisy picture that I get (I have one camera that
>>is very bad at high ISOs), you may only want to get rid of some of the
>>noise. I get NN to find the noise and then I adjust the sliders to get
>>rid of a much as possible WITHOUT getting that painterly effect. Usually
>> that doesn't get rid of all the noise.
>
>
> I have both NN and Neat Image as well. Both offer the ability to create a
> noise sample for the camera used utilizing a checkerboard color pattern
> with the camera at the same exposure settings as when I took the pic. I
> haven't done this, but it would require quite a bit of effort as the images
> are already "stacked" to help reduce the noise already there. I suppose I
> could take 15 or so images to be used as noise prints for NN or Neat Image.
> But my big question is: is a custom noise print created this way worth the
> effort? Would it in fact filter better than just using a sample from the
> same image like I'm doing now? If it is worth the effort and would really
> help reduce the noise without creating artifacts, I'm willing to try but
> only as a last resort because it will be difficult to recreate the same
> exposure settings in the camera.
>
> Larry
>
I have calibrated all my digital cameras in Noise Ninja and made
profiles for them. That really helps for batch processing and speeds
things up tremendously. It also works very well.
However, you can get the software to calculate it for each picture. In
NN just click on "Full Auto Profile". It will find the noise in that
particular image. That is in the Noise Profiler section. Then you go
over to Noise Filter tab. That's when you adjust the sliders to reach
that compromise between cutting the noise and making the picture look
real. Actually the Help files in NN are pretty good at explaining all this.
Naturally I do this on old scanned in slides and other pictures that I
can't calibrate a standard. It does work pretty well, if not
particularly fast.
Clyde