@software/Raw to Jpeg/ noise reduction?

sleipnir

Need more advice! (thanks for the lighting tips in the lighting advice thread I will be replying once i have some samples from my 200/200 bowens setup)

I have been using corel paintshop pro x3 and adobe photoshop to convert my raw files into jpegs.

I use a d3s and shoot everything in raw, which i've been converting over the last few years with the above two programs.

I really don't like to post process my images to much.

So anyways back to the meat and potatoes ive been using the one step noise removal options and digital camera noise removal option on my raw images and I then convert them to the highest quality option JPEG. My issue is with any of the noise reduction options I use it's giving my images a much softer look and i loose sharpness.

Is there a good noise reduction software that someone can recommend ?

Are there better raw to jpeg converting programs?

Should I invest in the NIKON OEM software....?

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

sevencrossing

I would try the 30 day free trial of Lightroom 5
https://creative.adobe.com/products/download/lightroom

The_Other_Steve

NX-D is free and you could try that. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/capturenxd/

You could try a search for a comparison of NR utilities and look for samples similar to what you shoot and produce. There are some popular Photoshop plugins, like Noise Ninja and Neat Image. But this is one of those things I think there isn't just one best tool always. I know some shooters use/switch between utilities.

Ironheart

If all you are doing is removing noise and cranking out the highest quality jpg, have you tried taking the highest quality jpg out of the camera? You can mess with the noise reduction settings and see how it compares.

heartyfisher

I have not used it yet but I have downloaded and installed the free trial version of DXO optics which look intriguing.

PS: I used to use paintshop pro 7 and 8 but I switched to linux..some years ago now and have to dual boot to windows to try the DXO software. thats why the delay in testing DXO.. I am hardly ever in windows lol.

autofocus

If you are using Photoshop why not use ACR. Go to the Detail (black triangle in the menu bar) and adjust the Luminance slider. You can even use the mask to protect parts of the image. Works pretty darn good if you ask me. I use it before opening in PS then use Nik Define (plug-in). The nice thing about Nik Define is, it saves the manipulation to it's own layer so you can adjust opacity to your liking.

haroldp

I have been using DXO rel. 10 for two weeks now, primarily for its noise reduction on difficult images.

It is by far the best NR I have ever seen, if you specify the 'PRIME' option in processing. It reduces both the scale, and size of noise 'grains; with no loss that I can see in sharpness or color. On some images, acutance actually seems improved.

The only downside that I can see (other than that I hate the workflow) is that it uses about 1,000 (yes thousand) times the cpu resource that PS/ACR noise reduction uses.

A single D800 or D810 image runs 12 cores (typically 1130 % cpu) on my macpro for a full 45 - 55 seconds, so some serious math is being done.

I use it only for my most difficult images, but on those, (eagles at ISO 3200 etc ) it is like magic.

My normal Nikon workflow is raw processing in Capture NX-2 or NX-D (for D810), and open in PS CS-6 if more editing is needed.

DXO uses raw files directly and profiles nikon sensors and lenses. I then output to a dng for PS CS-6 for more editing.

When using it, the default NR is 'high quality' which is just like everyone elses, for magic specify 'PRIME' NR.

I am now revisiting my archives for images to rescue, no rest for those with OCD.

... H

Msmoto

@sleipnir

"I really don't like to post process my images to much."

While I can understand what you would like, IMO, the actual point of exposure when we capture a photographic image is merely the initial step in a series of steps required to obtain the final result.

The post processing in many instances is about 90% of the work. However, if done with some degree of expertise, the final result looks as though it simply came out of the camera directly.

On a recent portrait, the initial shoot required about five hours or more to get set up, the post processing maybe as much as two hours. Rarely do we get images straight out of the camera which are final. The trick is to clearly hide all the work.

haroldp

+1