.... again because I've grown to respect your opinions.

Following from the high ISO thread I'm exploring another route.

In your opinion what's the best noise reduction software (preferably free) and how much does it degrade the detail in a picture? Bear in mind the sort of stuff that I do - insect macro - so retention of detail is important.

Thanks
MickLL

 

I`m far from being an expert(learning daily with my Martin Evening book) but I`ve had good results in CS4:

Filter>noise>reduce noise

Sorry for assuming you have Photoshop Mick.

 

Strewth!!! I do have PShop but never even thought to look. That's because, whenever I read about noise reduction on here, I don't remember PSHop being praised. I'll try it for sure.

Thanks
MickLL

 

I used to use NoiseNinja with the Canon 20D, but since getting the Nikon D3 and now the D800 I haven't used any noise reduction software at all.

 

Or, even if the image is a JPEG, load it into Camera Raw (via the 'Open As' menu in PS) and use the noise reduction capabilities there.

 

Noise reduction was significantly improved in Lightroom 3 and ACR v6 (Photoshop CS5?), as detailed here:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr3_review/lr3-1.htm

In the same link - Eric Chan's recommended luminance NR starting point of 25 often seems to me to strike an impressive balance of detail retention and smoothed noise.

 

I occasionally use the free version of Noise Ninja as built in to Bibble / AftershotPro, but there's always a trade off between noise and detail. It's theoretically impossible to remove all noise while leaving all detail intact, but I usually manage to get a compromise I'm happy with.

 

Interesting point about it being impossible to get rid of all noise. As I see it the problem there is identifying the noise from the detail. I would love to read how the various algorithms work and whether there is any practical real world difference with the different software.

Actually, even though I know that noise is rarely a problem in any print viewed at normal distances I can't resist fretting about noise when examining an image at 100% on my monitor!

 

I not long ago watched the lightoom tutorial on noise reduction .. the tutor started with something like ... I always use photoshop for noise reduction but ..

I have never eally bothered about noise as it isn't an issue with my normal photography but have been processing a lot of indoor pictures taken with mixed flash /artificial light in a function room which have needed shadows lifting to balance the light and can see how it can be intrusive.

 

I use noise reduction in virtually every image, mostly to meet the demands of third parties with the file at 100% rather than produce a print (third parties being various scrutinising picture libraries). The file has to essentially be produced with the idea in mind that it might be printed large, or otherwise outputted in testing fashion. Obviously a noiseless or low-noise file allows more headroom for that, although high ISO files invariably involve a compromise - one that I obsessively try to avoid.

For me, the common boast made about various cameras producing noiseless high ISO files has no meaning - for my microscopic purposes it isn't even true of a full-frame camera at 400ISO, and especially with default capture sharpening applied.

The need to use noise reduction in Lightroom or ACR essentially increased at LR3/ACR 6 because at that juncture the strong NR previously applied by default was removed from the demosaicing process. Adobe put NR control into the hands of the photographer, whereas previously it was the softest raw convertor around.

 

Reminds me of a certain photo library that rejected three of my images and gave the excuse "excessive dust".

I wrote back to them saying that it wasn't dust, it was pollen. They then re-reviewed the images and said "Oh... Yeah. That's okay then". I was kinda shocked as dust on the sensor looks nothing like pollen on a leaf/petal and a bit worried that their reviewers couldn't tell the difference!