[Den]

I may have had things turned up just a bit too much as you say, but that can be easily adjusted. As far as Sagelight not being a plugin, that's correct, but since the whole program only costs $40.00, it's a steal! Something for everyone, that's the American way Thanks for the postings guys. Here's a screenshot of the Noise Reduction Panel

---

Last edited by Den; 01-30-2014 at 01:44 PM.

[robgo2]

I may have had things turned up just a bit too much as you say, but that can be easily adjusted. As far as Sagelight not being a plugin, that's correct, but since the whole program only costs $40.00, it's a steal! Something for everyone, that's the American way Thanks for the postings guys. Here's a screenshot of the Noise Reduction Panel

Unfortunately, Sagelight is not available for the Mac platform, so I cannot try it. I am hoping to find a decent alternative to Photoshop, i.e. a pixel level editor. Corel's Paint Shop Pro would be a candidate, but it, too, is Windows only.

On the subject of noise reduction, it looks as though Sagelight may be capable of producing pleasing results. I would like to see more examples from it.

Rob

[Eric Seavey]

I just played with the Camera Raw noise reduction in PhotoShop. It has improved significantly since I used it in earlier versions of Photoshop Camera Raw. IT was quite fast too. Just not able to retain quite the detail that Photo Ninja and Topaz Denoise are able to do.

[Fries]

I am hoping to find a decent alternative to Photoshop, i.e. a pixel level editor. Corel's Paint Shop Pro would be a candidate, but it, too, is Windows only.

Rob

Perhaps Pixelmator comes close to what you want: Pixelmator? No noise reduction though I think.

[robgo2]

Perhaps Pixelmator comes close to what you want: Pixelmator? No noise reduction though I think.

Some months ago, I downloaded a trial version of Pixelmator. It has a slick interface, but it seems to be aimed at graphic designers and is not a replacement for Photoshop. It is very inexpensive and with good reason.

Rob

[robgo2]

I just played with the Camera Raw noise reduction in PhotoShop. It has improved significantly since I used it in earlier versions of Photoshop Camera Raw. IT was quite fast too. Just not able to retain quite the detail that Photo Ninja and Topaz Denoise are able to do.

ACR's noise reduction is actually quite decent but has never been up to the level of Topaz DeNoise 5, and now I think that it trails Noise Ninja 4 as well. I am referring to the latest ACR in CS6, which may very well be my last product from Adobe. I will use it until I reach an OS that is not supported. At that point, I have no idea what I will do, because I really don't want to be chained to Adobe's CC subscription plan.

Rob

[Eric Seavey]

Indeed, the ACR is pretty decent, and very fast. For weeks I have been deciding whether to upgrade my noise reduction plugin with Topax Denoise or Photo Ninja. I timed both plugins, and using Noise Ninja 4 Turbo option in Photo ninja makes the processing duration similar to Denoise. However, Noise Ninja 4 is significantly slower, though on my photos I haven't been able to tell the difference between turbo and non-turbo results. In the end, the Photo Ninja with its 4 sliders, is incredibly easy to use, where Denoise has the "Overall Strength" that controls most of the noise, and further tweaking can be followed up. Denoise seems to have the edge up on color rendering, as Photo Ninja finishes with a slight blueish tint. I went into Adjustments->Levels, and adjusted the Shadow Input Adjustment of the blue channel to 10, and that improved the image. For a quick Noise Reduction process, there is of course the option to use the ACR or Noise Ninja 3.

One strong point that Photo Ninja has is its raw conversion blown highlight recovery, that even tops ACR. I tend to intentionally under-expose many photos with lights or bright areas so that I don't have blown out areas. So sometimes I would even want to use the Photo Ninja Raw conversion plugin, and conveniently use the exposure adjustments in Photo Ninja to improve the lighting.

I ended up buying the Photo Ninja, but really think Noise Ninja 4 and Topaz Denoise are on par for noise reduction, depending on one's needs. Each have some strengths and weaknesses.
I have not yet tried the Sagelight noise reduction, because it cannot (yet) be used as a plugin to Photoshop, however, I have heard good things about its performance.

[robgo2]

Indeed, the ACR is pretty decent, and very fast. For weeks I have been deciding whether to upgrade my noise reduction plugin with Topax Denoise or Photo Ninja. I timed both plugins, and using Noise Ninja 4 Turbo option in Photo ninja makes the processing duration similar to Denoise. However, Noise Ninja 4 is significantly slower, though on my photos I haven't been able to tell the difference between turbo and non-turbo results. In the end, the Photo Ninja with its 4 sliders, is incredibly easy to use, where Denoise has the "Overall Strength" that controls most of the noise, and further tweaking can be followed up. Denoise seems to have the edge up on color rendering, as Photo Ninja finishes with a slight blueish tint. I went into Adjustments->Levels, and adjusted the Shadow Input Adjustment of the blue channel to 10, and that improved the image. For a quick Noise Reduction process, there is of course the option to use the ACR or Noise Ninja 3.

One strong point that Photo Ninja has is its raw conversion blown highlight recovery, that even tops ACR. I tend to intentionally under-expose many photos with lights or bright areas so that I don't have blown out areas. So sometimes I would even want to use the Photo Ninja Raw conversion plugin, and conveniently use the exposure adjustments in Photo Ninja to improve the lighting.

I ended up buying the Photo Ninja, but really think Noise Ninja 4 and Topaz Denoise are on par for noise reduction, depending on one's needs. Each have some strengths and weaknesses.
I have not yet tried the Sagelight noise reduction, because it cannot (yet) be used as a plugin to Photoshop, however, I have heard good things about its performance.

There is a new contender for top noise reduction software--DxO 9's Prime NR module. It is very impressive at retaining detail, although I have noticed a tendency towards blotchiness in out of focus areas. However, unless you have a relatively new, fast computer, it is slow in operation and very slow in rendering to output. Overall, I like DxO 9, although I still prefer Photo Ninja's raw conversions.

BTW, if you think that PN produces a slight bluish tint, it should be a simple matter to correct that in the Color Correction module. No need to do it in Photoshop, which is what you seem to be describing. Either way, use what works.

Rob

[GeneV]

Just started with Photo Ninja and NN 4. I really miss the ability to mark off areas of noise as in NN3 to train. I felt that fine tuned the reduction the best. I also find photoninja very slow and it hints at instability. I have a pretty robust ASUS ROG with lots of memory and fast graphics. Photoshop never even causes it to breathe hard, but PhotoNinja starts in cranking the fan.

That being said, the noise reduction is astounding. I shot some dancers in Romania at ISO 12,800 to stop action without a flash. PhotoNinja rendered them grainless with good detail. It is hard to believe the K5 II could really this useful at such high sensitivity. With ACR, the face of the woman turning under is covered in fine black pepper, and PS seems to render a blotchy, waxy result.