# Is noise reduction least "detrimental"?



## New Daddy (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't know what expression I should use so I chose "detrimental".
What I'm trying to ask is that, with other developmental options - be it brightness, contrast, color, distortion, etc. - the whole look changes, for better or for worse.
But with noise reduction, I don't really see the photo getting worse - it always gets better. Maybe it's because I do it to a highly noisy picture which can't get worse.

How do you feel? does noise reduction preserve the most of the look of the original photo?


----------



## clee01l (Nov 22, 2013)

<del>You can make the image appear worse.  Oversharpening artifacts begin to show up The look regular and a little like color ice crystals on a window pane.  

One tool that I use to an advantage id the Masking adjustment. If you move it to the right (color highlighting helps) it will outline only the edges where sharpening gets applied.  You really only want to sharpen edges and sharpening the background serves no purpose.  Unfortunately, LR defaults the masking parameter at zero meaning everything gets sharpening applied to it.</del>

Disregard, I think I answered too many topics yesterday on sharpening.  To me Sharpening and NR go hand in hand. And I mis read the question.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 22, 2013)

New Daddy said:


> How do you feel? does noise reduction preserve the most of the look of the original photo?


On the contrary. NR can ruin your photo. If you apply too much, details get lost and you get a smooth but plastic mess. I prefer noise with detail over noise free without detail. I've never been much of a fan of LR NR. I always use topaz Denoise 5.


----------



## Bryan Conner (Nov 22, 2013)

I agree, too much Noise Reduction can be detrimental....leaving the image looking plastic.  I am a fan of Lightroom 5's noise reduction.  I shoot a lot of high iso images (ice skating) with a Canon 7d at iso 6400.  I have tried Noise Ninja 4 (in Photo Ninja), Topaz Denoise 5, Nik Define 2, Imagenomic Noiseware 5, Neat Image 7, and DXO's PRIME noise reduction (in DXO Pro Optic 9).  DXO PRIME does a really good job of reducing noise and preserving detail in my opinion.  But, as we would say in Mississippi, it is as slow as cold molasses on a flat plate...around 15-20 minutes per file while using virtually all of your processing power.  I am still on the fence about the other aspects of the raw processing factors with it though...color rendering etc.  In my opinion, Lightroom 5 is still the best overall option at the moment especially when you include processing time and processor usage.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 22, 2013)

Hi Bryan,

LR NR is certainly not bad and it will do for 90% of my images. When I process ISO6400 images, it simply falls short IMO and a dedicated plugin like Topaz just adds more quality. Topaz can also remove banding, which is a huge plus with my 5D and 5DmkII. When used as a plugin, I can work fast. When I know which preset I need, it's about 15 seconds to enter the plugin and a 1.5 minute to process.


----------



## New Daddy (Nov 22, 2013)

Selwin said:


> Hi Bryan,
> 
> LR NR is certainly not bad and it will do for 90% of my images. When I process ISO6400 images, it simply falls short IMO and a dedicated plugin like Topaz just adds more quality. Topaz can also remove banding, which is a huge plus with my 5D and 5DmkII. When used as a plugin, I can work fast. When I know which preset I need, it's about 15 seconds to enter the plugin and a 1.5 minute to process.



I just took a glimpse at the Topaz website, and it looks like it can do a good job. I too have banding issues with my camera at high ISO. But the price of the plug-in is eye-popping! $79? That's almost as expensive as LR upgrade!  Are there special discounts on Topaz from time to time, as there is for LR?


----------



## Selwin (Nov 22, 2013)

New Daddy said:


> But the price of the plug-in is eye-popping! $79? That's almost as expensive as LR upgrade!  Are there special discounts on Topaz from time to time, as there is for LR?


There are quite a few plugins packages that are more expensive than Lightroom itself. I think it's mainly because Lightroom has become such a bargain since v4. I paid 300 for version 3. The Nik collection is 149 at the moment, used to be more expensive too. I think it comes down to what your needs are and if you benefit from the software. In professional environments, 79 USD is nothing compared to sweating on a couple of images for hours. For the advanced amateurs it may be different. I do agree that 79 for just a noise plugin is quite a lot of money though.

Why don't you download a free trial and see if you like it as much as 79 bucks?


----------



## pdxrjt (Nov 22, 2013)

I am not sure if there are discounts for someone who has not purchased any Topaz plug ins, but I think there are.  After you buy one, there are e-mails that offer others at a significant discount fairly frequently.


----------



## Bryan Conner (Nov 22, 2013)

Selwin said:


> Hi Bryan,
> 
> LR NR is certainly not bad and it will do for 90% of my images. When I process ISO6400 images, it simply falls short IMO and a dedicated plugin like Topaz just adds more quality. Topaz can also remove banding, which is a huge plus with my 5D and 5DmkII. When used as a plugin, I can work fast. When I know which preset I need, it's about 15 seconds to enter the plugin and a 1.5 minute to process.




Have you tried DXO 9 on your iso 6400 files?  If not, I strongly recommend giving it a try.  

I agree that Lightroom 5 is not the best for really noisy images, but for me, it is close enough for all but the most critical images.  What I mean by that, is that when I have to process 400+ images from a weekend ice skating event to deliver to the ice skating club, the time that lightroom saves is more valuable to me than the small amount of image quality that I gain...or that the customer gains I should say.  But, if I have a really special image that I think could be printed large, then I agree, Topaz, or even Neat Image usually does a better job.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 22, 2013)

I've played around with DxO a couple of times. It feels decent and for individual images it's a very promising package. I decided to stick with Lightroom, CS6 and Topaz, it's all I need right now. I like Topaz better than NeatImage, but the latter is neat too.


----------

