Neat Image Pro Plus 6.0
Justina Ky
AP's Denoise does a fair job, Dfine2 is good if you add more control points in manual mode, neat image I haven't tried but I'm downloading the trial now to test with. I think of the 3 Dfine2 appears to work best, Neat Image didn't seem to have much affect.
Neat Image do a trial version so you can have a play before you buy and decide for yourself, personally I found it a bit unrefined, the GUI wasn't the nicest to use but don't let that put you off, try it and then make a choice, you never know it might be the "best noise removal software on the market" for you. lol
I like Dfine, I like the finesse you get with the control points. The only program that comes close for me is DxO Photo Optics although It's now called DxO PhotoLab but it has a hefty $200 price tag for the elite version which has the Raw Denoising option. So Dfine is the clear winner when it comes to results, control and of course price.
Well there are a bunch of tools which allow to remove noise/grain to some degree here, though results also highly depend on their algorithmic accuracy and the kind of input image noise, aka high ISO and lighting conditions. - Another tool which sometimes gives good results is Topaz DeNoise which is also easy to use. However, I first would try the tools you already have available there.
I have just done a comparison of Dfine and Neat image on a scanned slide of a sea anemone. I have cropped the image to just the background plus a tentacle. All images are the original resolution (not re-sized). In both cases, I used the a region in the area shown as the training area for the denoising.
I would probably agree in this case. I used this image as I was using it as a subject for trying masking to combine de-noising and sharpening. My overall impression over a variety of other slide scans is that Nik is marginally better.
Image noise can compromise the level of detail in your digital or film photos, and so reducing this noise can greatly enhance your final image or print. The problem is that most techniques to reduce or remove noise always end up softening the image as well. Some softening may be acceptable for images consisting primarily of smooth water or skies, but foliage in landscapes can suffer with even conservative attempts to reduce noise.
Image averaging works on the assumption that the noise in your image is truly random. This way, random fluctuations above and below actual image data will gradually even out as one averages more and more images. If you were to take two shots of a smooth gray patch, using the same camera settings and under identical conditions (temperature, lighting, etc.), then you would obtain images similar to those shown on the left.
The above plot represents brightness fluctuations along thin blue and red strips of pixels in the top and bottom images, respectively. The dashed horizontal line represents the average, or what this plot look like if there were zero noise. Note how each of the red and blue lines uniquely fluctuates above and below the dashed line. If we were to take the pixel value at each location along this line, and average it with value for the pixel in the same location for the other image, then the brightness variation would be reduced as follows:
Even though the average of the two still fluctuates above and below the mean, the maximum deviation is greatly reduced. Visually, this has the affect of making the patch to the left appear smoother. Two averaged images usually produce noise comparable to an ISO setting which is half as sensitive, so two averaged images taken at ISO 400 are comparable to one image taken at ISO 200, and so on. In general, magnitude of noise fluctuation drops by the square root of the number of images averaged, so you need to average 4 images in order to cut the magnitude in half.
The next example illustrates the effectiveness of image averaging in a real-world example. The following photo was taken at ISO 1600 on the Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel, and suffers from excessive noise.
Note how averaging both reduces noise and brings out the detail for each region. Noise reduction programs such as Neat Image are the best available arsenal against noise, and so this is used as the benchmark in the following comparison:
Neat Image is the best of all for reducing noise in the smooth sky, but it sacrifices some fine detail in the tree branch and vertical mortar/grout lines in the brickwork. Sharpening could be used to enhance the remaining detail and greatly improve the overall appearance of sharpness, but sharpening cannot recover lost information. The median filter is a primitive technique and is in most versions of Photoshop. It calculates each pixel value by taking the median value of all adjacent pixels. This is effective at removing very fine noise, but leaves larger fluctuations behind and eliminates pixel-level detail. Overall, Neat Image is your best option for situations where you cannot use image averaging (hand held shots). Ideally, one could use a combination of the two: image averaging to increase the SNR as much as possible, then Neat Image to reduce any remaining noise:
Note how neat image plus averaging is now able to both retain the vertical detail in the bricks and maintain a smooth, low noise look. Disadvantages of the averaging technique include increased storage requirements (multiple image files for one photo) and possibly longer exposure times. Image averaging does not work on images which suffer from banding noise or fixed pattern noise. Note how the bright white "hot pixel" in the lower left of both the top and bottom images does not diminish with averaging. Averaging, unlike other shots, requires zero camera movement *between* exposures in addition to during the exposure. Extra care should be taken with technique and averaging can only be used for photos taken on a very sturdy camera tripod.
Performing image averaging in Adobe Photoshop is relatively quick using layers. The idea is to stack each image in a separate layer, and have them blend together such that each layer contributes equally. If for some reason one layer receives more weighting than another, the blending of images will not be as effective.
One must first load all images into Photoshop which are to be averaged, and then copy and paste each image on top of each other so that they are all within the same project window. Once this is done, the averaging can begin. The key to averaging in Photoshop is to remember that each layer's opacity determines how much the layer behind it is "let through," and the same goes for each image underneath. This means that to properly average four images, for example, one should not set each layer's opacity to 25%. One should instead set the bottom (or background) layer's opacity to 100%, the layer on top of that to 50%, and then the next layer to 33%, and finally the top layer to 25%. This is illustrated below:
Taking photos at 1/30th shutter speed is a little slow. The flash will freeze some action, but people move (both the subject and your hand). Also, f 2.8 might not be a good enough depth of field for you: You have to be right on or things will be out of the depth of field.
I would suggest a tripod for some of the work, you should be able to stop your hand shake with the tripod. That will help you capture some subjects. Also, I would probably increase my ISO, and shoot at a different f-stop to increase some depth of field.
The first wedding I shot was dimly lit and indoors - I shot ISO 1600, with Image Stabilised (rented) lenses, ceiling bounced the light (low ceilings) and processed with Neat Image software to reduce the noise.
If during the ceremony, there are actually a lot more still moments that can handle 1/30th than you might think. I would still find a spot with a tripod and go from there, but look for those still moments and get those. You can also crank ISO like crazy to get proper exposure (underexposure at high ISO is tough even for the best noiseware to handle, IMO) or to convert to black and white if you want to go handheld.
If during the processional/recessional, you have no choice but to use a higher shutter speed, and let the flash do what it can for the background (which may not be much). You might be able to ask each couple to pause for a second before they march down the aisle (which won't work for the recessional, which is like a footrace sometimes). That has worked for me. But if I can't get them to do that, I just go up to 1/100 or more and get what I can. I also shoot closer rather than farther so that at least the flash light is nice and diffused.
I plan on using a tripod also, and just taking the camera off the tripod to get closer shots if needed. I was trying a slower shutter speed to try and get more natural light in and diffuse the flash, but bad idea if there is no natural light i guess.
I had the white balance on Auto because I was using a flash, and setting the white balance on flash still gave me too much yellow; and setting the white balance to incandescent with the flash gave me too much blue.
Do you only have 1 body? If you can rent the 70-200, consider that having on one body and use the VR instead of a tripod. Then keep a more normal lens on the other body so that you can move up, with higher ISO. I think the 24-120 slows down at 120, so that lens is really sub-optimal as you zoom in. IMO.
c80f0f1006