Which Noise Reduction programs do you use and why?

aaronius · 11-05-2010, 08:57 PM

Hey guys, I am thinking of getting a noise reduction program but am not sure which one to get. I have done some research and is looking at either the Denoise Topaz or Noiseware now.

I have downloaded the Denoise Topaz 30-days trial and also the Noiseware Community Edition. I realised that for Denoise, you can only do the NR part by part? Whereas for Noiseware, once I choose my NR profile/parameters, the NR will apply to the whole picture in one go? If that is really the case, then Noiseware seems to be the easier one to use?

I see that for Noiseware, there are 2 versions,

1) Noiseware Professional Plug-in - $69.95

2) Noiseware Professional Standalone - $49.95

What are the main differences between these 2? The Plug-in version is more expensive, what benefits/advantages it offers over the Standalone? Sorry if my questions sound ignorant, I am very new to PP, just got my CS5 a few days ago only.

imtheguy · 11-05-2010, 09:09 PM

I picked up the Noiseware plugin (for PE8 then 9) last year. There are so many sliders to play with I was never able to decide if one was better than the other (Denoise, etc.). So many options, I just pick a mild setting for all and go with it. The stand-alone version was not an option as I want to get PP over with as quick as possible and inside of a single program.

My bet is that an "expert" with any of the packages can make a beautiful shot from moderate noise. Good luck and enjoy.

JohnBee · 11-05-2010, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by aaronius

Hey guys, I am thinking of getting a noise reduction program but am not sure which one to get. I have done some research and is looking at either the Denoise Topaz or Noiseware now.

I have downloaded the Denoise Topaz 30-days trial and also the Noiseware Community Edition. I realised that for Denoise, you can only do the NR part by part? Whereas for Noiseware, once I choose my NR profile/parameters, the NR will apply to the whole picture in one go? If that is really the case, then Noiseware seems to be the easier one to use?

TBH, if you use ACR/CS5, for prints would you most likely not need anything else other than the amazing Chroma noise reduction engine built into ACR 6.x

Noise reduction really is an all or nothing type of approach imo.
And though you are absolutely correct about Noisware's brush-in capabilities. I would also remind you(just as imtheguy mentioned) that the added weight of the softwares interface and controls most often does not outweight the much simpler interface of Denoise.

However, for performance alone, there simply is no question about it. Denoise is the current king of the hill(so to speak) with respect to NR performance results(true story).

And in case you wondered, I just wanted to say that I have no affiliations with Denoise in any way. I just really like the results.

Congratulations on your CS5 purchase btw!

imtheguy · 11-05-2010, 09:26 PM

Hey JohnB, I would switch in a hearbeat to a superior, easier to use plugin. Is there some review or comparison you know of i could read to help me decide? I must admit Noiseware has every control I can imagine but is scant on how and when to apply them. On the other hand just eliminating them does not make me feel better about another product.

Whatcha got for me? thanks man!

JohnBee · 11-05-2010, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by imtheguy

Hey JohnB, I would switch in a hearbeat to a superior, easier to use plugin. Is there some review or comparison you know of i could read to help me decide? I must admit Noiseware has every control I can imagine but is scant on how and when to apply them. On the other hand just eliminating them does not make me feel better about another product.

Whatcha got for me? thanks man!

Unfortunately, I don't have much to offer.

I remember looking for Denoise head to head reviews in the past and I came-up rather short. However, I think the best testimony for Denoise's capabilities come in form of end-user results. However, I will go as far as saying that Denoise can be a bit of a chore to get used too 'if'... coming from the typical wavelet based NR tools such as: Noise Ninja, Noiseware and Neat Image. Mainly due to the difference in Noise reduction Technology(so named: IntelliNoise). Which can put a spin on the way most people will tend to apply the software.

However, in defence of Denoise, I think the software comes as a breath of fresh air by simplifying what used to take pages of sliders and controllers and reducing it to mere handful of sliders.

In this very same way, I also think Denoise's lack of noise brush actually works in its favor as it seems far more practical to work on layers than within the software interface(keeping the PSD work composite intact).

Well that's my take on it anyways.
TBH. if we are talking a camera like a K-5. I honestly don't think 3'rd party NR is even necessary for all but a select extreme or unfortunate type of shots. Otherwise, ACR will be more than enough to churn out some amazing prints well into the IOS25600 range.

imtheguy · 11-05-2010, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

TBH. if we are talking a camera like a K-5. I honestly don't think 3'rd party NR is even necessary for all but a select extreme or unfortunate type of shots. Otherwise, ACR will be more than enough to churn out some amazing prints well into the IOS25600 range.

TBH? you mean you are not normally honest in these posts??

Ok, serious again. Although my friends consider me the tech geek, I have not a clue what wavelet NR is versus any other kind. Nor do I care if the results are the same...I guess.

The reason i apply some NR to most of my wildlife shots is I typically shoot a critter that is a stop or two lighter than the background, thus have to underexpose the whole shot to get proper exposure on the critter. I may have to then raise the exposure on the background using a selection tool to grab all but the white egret or osprey against dark trees. I end up with visable noise in the background. Noiseware does a fine job on it since I am not trying to preserve much detail there anyway. But i am always looking for easier, faster, cheaper. Guess i need to go for the free trial on Denoise to re-evaluate (did it a year ago) now that i am much more familiar with the competition.

Agreed, the built-in NR in ACR does a creditable job but I seldom shoot RAW for wildlife and often don't know how much NR I need until the end of my PP.

Suggestions appreciated as always.

aaronius · 11-07-2010, 01:46 AM

Hey thanks John! I am loving CS5 so far, I was using CS2 previously and didnt really dabble much into it. I hope to learn more about post-processing as I feel it is an important part of photography too!

I am experimenting more on Topaz Denoise now and I am liking what I am seeing more and more. Processing speed is abit slower than Noiseware but acceptable to me. The quality of the NR is really good! And I agree that the simpler interface of Denoise is a plus. I saw your threads on the comparisons for low and high ISO performance for the K5 and I love what you did with just a little Denoise especially the ISO 51200 portrait pic! I have ordered my K5 and just waiting for it to arrive and I think I will most likely get Denoise.

Anyway OT abit, I also downloaded Topaz Adjust Trial and it seems like a pretty neat and useful plug-in. Easy to use. Are any of you using it and would you recommend me getting it together with Denoise?

Originally posted by JohnBee

TBH, if you use ACR/CS5, for prints would you most likely not need anything else other than the amazing Chroma noise reduction engine built into ACR 6.x

Noise reduction really is an all or nothing type of approach imo.
And though you are absolutely correct about Noisware's brush-in capabilities. I would also remind you(just as imtheguy mentioned) that the added weight of the softwares interface and controls most often does not outweight the much simpler interface of Denoise.

However, for performance alone, there simply is no question about it. Denoise is the current king of the hill(so to speak) with respect to NR performance results(true story).

And in case you wondered, I just wanted to say that I have no affiliations with Denoise in any way. I just really like the results.

Congratulations on your CS5 purchase btw!

wjax · 11-07-2010, 04:06 PM

I have both NW Pro and DeNoise and like them both. My fave is NW since it offers more control, comes with more useful presets, and seems to hold detail (esp. color) when used on really noisy files (>ISO 1600).

JohnBee · 11-07-2010, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by wjax

My fave is NW since it offers more control, comes with more useful presets, and seems to hold detail (esp. color) when used on really noisy files (>ISO 1600).

Based on what I've seen, I'd say there is definitely a problem if Denoise doesn't outperform NW at any given level.

Are you treating JPG or RAW?

Wheatfield · 11-07-2010, 06:54 PM

I just use whatever is packed with Photoshop CS5. I don't see much reason to try anything else.

casil403 · 11-08-2010, 05:07 AM

I use a combination of DFine by Nik and then the Noise reduction slider in LR3. I've tried many but this seems to work by far the best and easiest for me. The noise reduction slider in LR3 is by far superior to the LR2 version and it is a good as anything out there now IMO.

wjax · 11-08-2010, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Based on what I've seen, I'd say there is definitely a problem if Denoise doesn't outperform NW at any given level.

Are you treating JPG or RAW?

Raw only.

JohnBee · 11-08-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by wjax

Raw only.

Okay that makes it a little more straightforward.
And though there is still headroom at the RAW developer level, I think that you should expect more out of Denoise than NW on all levels of the playing field. Howwever, it may be necessary to resort to masking with Denoise in contrast to the noise brush in NW.

twitch · 11-08-2010, 03:39 PM

I've used Dfine v2 for about 9 months, but after seeing JohnBee's results in the K-5 threads I downloaded a trial of DeNoise. So far I've only used the default presets in DeNoise, but the results are IMHO far better than the results I was getting out of DFine, so much so I have no fear at all in using iso3200 as they clean up extremely well, and I will now trial 6400.

wjax · 11-08-2010, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Okay that makes it a little more straightforward.
I think that you should expect more out of Denoise than NW on all levels of the playing field.

I'm curious as to why you say this. I think NW is a stellar product and offers better control than Dnoise. Can you enlighten me?

11-05-2010, 08:57 PM	#1
aaronius Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 188	Which Noise Reduction programs do you use and why? Hey guys, I am thinking of getting a noise reduction program but am not sure which one to get. I have done some research and is looking at either the Denoise Topaz or Noiseware now. I have downloaded the Denoise Topaz 30-days trial and also the Noiseware Community Edition. I realised that for Denoise, you can only do the NR part by part? Whereas for Noiseware, once I choose my NR profile/parameters, the NR will apply to the whole picture in one go? If that is really the case, then Noiseware seems to be the easier one to use? I see that for Noiseware, there are 2 versions, 1) Noiseware Professional Plug-in - $69.95 2) Noiseware Professional Standalone - $49.95 What are the main differences between these 2? The Plug-in version is more expensive, what benefits/advantages it offers over the Standalone? Sorry if my questions sound ignorant, I am very new to PP, just got my CS5 a few days ago only.

11-05-2010, 10:26 PM	#5
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by imtheguy Hey JohnB, I would switch in a hearbeat to a superior, easier to use plugin. Is there some review or comparison you know of i could read to help me decide? I must admit Noiseware has every control I can imagine but is scant on how and when to apply them. On the other hand just eliminating them does not make me feel better about another product. Whatcha got for me? thanks man! Unfortunately, I don't have much to offer. I remember looking for Denoise head to head reviews in the past and I came-up rather short. However, I think the best testimony for Denoise's capabilities come in form of end-user results. However, I will go as far as saying that Denoise can be a bit of a chore to get used too 'if'... coming from the typical wavelet based NR tools such as: Noise Ninja, Noiseware and Neat Image. Mainly due to the difference in Noise reduction Technology(so named: IntelliNoise). Which can put a spin on the way most people will tend to apply the software. However, in defence of Denoise, I think the software comes as a breath of fresh air by simplifying what used to take pages of sliders and controllers and reducing it to mere handful of sliders. In this very same way, I also think Denoise's lack of noise brush actually works in its favor as it seems far more practical to work on layers than within the software interface(keeping the PSD work composite intact). Well that's my take on it anyways. TBH. if we are talking a camera like a K-5. I honestly don't think 3'rd party NR is even necessary for all but a select extreme or unfortunate type of shots. Otherwise, ACR will be more than enough to churn out some amazing prints well into the IOS25600 range. Last edited by JohnBee; 11-05-2010 at 10:46 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Noise Reduction in K-x	wed7	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	09-26-2010 12:11 AM
Noise reduction?	PHOTOCOP	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	17	04-10-2010 04:49 AM
Noise reduction	richardsmith	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	10-26-2009 06:01 PM
Do you do noise reduction?	alehel	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	39	04-12-2009 05:14 AM
Noise reduction on or off?	mikeatnite	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	01-28-2007 04:10 AM

11-05-2010, 09:09 PM	#2
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I picked up the Noiseware plugin (for PE8 then 9) last year. There are so many sliders to play with I was never able to decide if one was better than the other (Denoise, etc.). So many options, I just pick a mild setting for all and go with it. The stand-alone version was not an option as I want to get PP over with as quick as possible and inside of a single program. My bet is that an "expert" with any of the packages can make a beautiful shot from moderate noise. Good luck and enjoy.

11-05-2010, 09:20 PM	#3
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by aaronius Hey guys, I am thinking of getting a noise reduction program but am not sure which one to get. I have done some research and is looking at either the Denoise Topaz or Noiseware now. I have downloaded the Denoise Topaz 30-days trial and also the Noiseware Community Edition. I realised that for Denoise, you can only do the NR part by part? Whereas for Noiseware, once I choose my NR profile/parameters, the NR will apply to the whole picture in one go? If that is really the case, then Noiseware seems to be the easier one to use? TBH, if you use ACR/CS5, for prints would you most likely not need anything else other than the amazing Chroma noise reduction engine built into ACR 6.x Noise reduction really is an all or nothing type of approach imo. And though you are absolutely correct about Noisware's brush-in capabilities. I would also remind you(just as imtheguy mentioned) that the added weight of the softwares interface and controls most often does not outweight the much simpler interface of Denoise. However, for performance alone, there simply is no question about it. Denoise is the current king of the hill(so to speak) with respect to NR performance results(true story). And in case you wondered, I just wanted to say that I have no affiliations with Denoise in any way. I just really like the results. Congratulations on your CS5 purchase btw!

11-05-2010, 09:26 PM	#4
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Hey JohnB, I would switch in a hearbeat to a superior, easier to use plugin. Is there some review or comparison you know of i could read to help me decide? I must admit Noiseware has every control I can imagine but is scant on how and when to apply them. On the other hand just eliminating them does not make me feel better about another product. Whatcha got for me? thanks man!

11-05-2010, 10:40 PM	#6
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Originally posted by JohnBee TBH. if we are talking a camera like a K-5. I honestly don't think 3'rd party NR is even necessary for all but a select extreme or unfortunate type of shots. Otherwise, ACR will be more than enough to churn out some amazing prints well into the IOS25600 range. TBH? you mean you are not normally honest in these posts?? Ok, serious again. Although my friends consider me the tech geek, I have not a clue what wavelet NR is versus any other kind. Nor do I care if the results are the same...I guess. The reason i apply some NR to most of my wildlife shots is I typically shoot a critter that is a stop or two lighter than the background, thus have to underexpose the whole shot to get proper exposure on the critter. I may have to then raise the exposure on the background using a selection tool to grab all but the white egret or osprey against dark trees. I end up with visable noise in the background. Noiseware does a fine job on it since I am not trying to preserve much detail there anyway. But i am always looking for easier, faster, cheaper. Guess i need to go for the free trial on Denoise to re-evaluate (did it a year ago) now that i am much more familiar with the competition. Agreed, the built-in NR in ACR does a creditable job but I seldom shoot RAW for wildlife and often don't know how much NR I need until the end of my PP. Suggestions appreciated as always.

11-07-2010, 01:46 AM	#7
aaronius Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 188 Original Poster	Hey thanks John! I am loving CS5 so far, I was using CS2 previously and didnt really dabble much into it. I hope to learn more about post-processing as I feel it is an important part of photography too! I am experimenting more on Topaz Denoise now and I am liking what I am seeing more and more. Processing speed is abit slower than Noiseware but acceptable to me. The quality of the NR is really good! And I agree that the simpler interface of Denoise is a plus. I saw your threads on the comparisons for low and high ISO performance for the K5 and I love what you did with just a little Denoise especially the ISO 51200 portrait pic! I have ordered my K5 and just waiting for it to arrive and I think I will most likely get Denoise. Anyway OT abit, I also downloaded Topaz Adjust Trial and it seems like a pretty neat and useful plug-in. Easy to use. Are any of you using it and would you recommend me getting it together with Denoise? Originally posted by JohnBee TBH, if you use ACR/CS5, for prints would you most likely not need anything else other than the amazing Chroma noise reduction engine built into ACR 6.x Noise reduction really is an all or nothing type of approach imo. And though you are absolutely correct about Noisware's brush-in capabilities. I would also remind you(just as imtheguy mentioned) that the added weight of the softwares interface and controls most often does not outweight the much simpler interface of Denoise. However, for performance alone, there simply is no question about it. Denoise is the current king of the hill(so to speak) with respect to NR performance results(true story). And in case you wondered, I just wanted to say that I have no affiliations with Denoise in any way. I just really like the results. Congratulations on your CS5 purchase btw!

11-07-2010, 04:06 PM	#8
wjax Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 51	I have both NW Pro and DeNoise and like them both. My fave is NW since it offers more control, comes with more useful presets, and seems to hold detail (esp. color) when used on really noisy files (>ISO 1600).

11-07-2010, 06:05 PM	#9
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by wjax My fave is NW since it offers more control, comes with more useful presets, and seems to hold detail (esp. color) when used on really noisy files (>ISO 1600). Based on what I've seen, I'd say there is definitely a problem if Denoise doesn't outperform NW at any given level. Are you treating JPG or RAW?

11-07-2010, 06:54 PM	#10
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	I just use whatever is packed with Photoshop CS5. I don't see much reason to try anything else.

11-08-2010, 05:07 AM	#11
casil403 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Calgary AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,170	I use a combination of DFine by Nik and then the Noise reduction slider in LR3. I've tried many but this seems to work by far the best and easiest for me. The noise reduction slider in LR3 is by far superior to the LR2 version and it is a good as anything out there now IMO.

11-08-2010, 07:30 AM	#12
wjax Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 51	Originally posted by JohnBee Based on what I've seen, I'd say there is definitely a problem if Denoise doesn't outperform NW at any given level. Are you treating JPG or RAW? Raw only.

11-08-2010, 03:25 PM	#13
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by wjax Raw only. Okay that makes it a little more straightforward. And though there is still headroom at the RAW developer level, I think that you should expect more out of Denoise than NW on all levels of the playing field. Howwever, it may be necessary to resort to masking with Denoise in contrast to the noise brush in NW.

11-08-2010, 03:39 PM	#14
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I've used Dfine v2 for about 9 months, but after seeing JohnBee's results in the K-5 threads I downloaded a trial of DeNoise. So far I've only used the default presets in DeNoise, but the results are IMHO far better than the results I was getting out of DFine, so much so I have no fear at all in using iso3200 as they clean up extremely well, and I will now trial 6400.

11-08-2010, 03:59 PM	#15
wjax Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 51	Originally posted by JohnBee Okay that makes it a little more straightforward. I think that you should expect more out of Denoise than NW on all levels of the playing field. I'm curious as to why you say this. I think NW is a stellar product and offers better control than Dnoise. Can you enlighten me?