Found a very useful photoshop plug-in.

ijonas

ijonas

Established
Local time
11:44 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
76
Hi,

I haven't posted to these forums in a couple of months. Been really busy with work so I haven't picked up the M6 in a while. Back in the swing of things though, you'll be glad to hear.

I spent 2 weeks in Jordan in October, had a great time. Me, myself and my M6, a ColarSkopar lense, 10 rolls of Acros and a red filter. I developed them all in Diafine and the results are very pleasing. Scanning has been tedious but not as tedious as removing the dust once in Photoshop.

I read an article on Luminous Landscape about noise/grain reduction and decided to try out NeatImage , which the article mentions. I've been blown away by my results and thought I'd share them with you, seeing as there are very few examples on noise/grain reduction software applied to 35mm negatives produced by the rangefinders we all love.

Cheers,
Ijonas.

P.S. The rest of my Jordan trip may be found here .
 
Last edited:
Very nice work here.

I've been thinking about both Neat Image and Power Retouche: my principal need is for occasional grain reduction in extreme cases, as opposed to converting color image files to b/w. In this case, NI seems the better (and cheaper) bet. Might download the demo to try out in a while.

And, welcome back!


- Barrett
 
Wow, that is an amazing comparison. Thanks for posting - definitely something to look at when I can do some scanning.
 
Neat Image and Noise Ninja are two of the best noise reduction programs out there. I have both, but prefer Neat Image as I think it keeps detail better with less tweaking than Noise Ninja. Both are great though.

Tom
 
Interesting. The grain-free image looks like it was shot with a high-end digicam at a low ISO setting.
 
Yes, very clean. OTOH I'm not sure if I like it better with or without the grain.
 
Socke said:
Yes, very clean. OTOH I'm not sure if I like it better with or without the grain.
Click to expand...


That is why having the option is so nice. You can present the shot the way you want it.

The Cheshire Cat in my gallery has little or no noise, but the version I submitted for the RFF book was more like the original because that tends to look better in a print.

One shot, two different 'looks'.

Tom
 
I like the use in this photo Ijonas. Thanks for the links. I try not to get too involved in this digital stuff, but I am starting to realize I need to move with the times. I have bookmarked the pages and will look into downloading and using NeatImage.
 
I've been using the free version for about a year now, and it is really amazing. The pay version adds a lot of flexibility. Thanks for bringing it up!
 
Hi Ijonas,

In all fairness I have to say that I'm not convinced by your demonstration. You need to provide more information as to what you're trying to achieve. For one thing, what type of output are you targeting, print on paper or screen display? Also, is the image you posted a full 35mm frame or a crop thereof?

I would argue that the contribution of grain to the texture/sharpness/mood of a picture can only be appreciated from a real print, and not from viewing the image on a computer screen.

Personally I like this kind of image with more, rather than less, grain. I've always thought that the smooth black-and-white look was better reserved to wedding photography and, possibly, studio portraiture. For pretty much everything else, if the picture has to be smooth then it might as well be in colour. ;)

I also very much agree with Hoot about the filtered image looking just like what a digital camera with a reasonably-sized sensor would produce. Slow film can be substituted for by digital capture, whilst fast/grainy film (such as Tri-X) just can't.

Vincent (in curmudgeonly mood tonight, sorry)
 
I've been using Neat Image for a few years now; it is worth purchasing the license. Mastering the controls takes some practice if you don't want the "plastic look"; very versatile piece of software.

I have the standalone and plugin. It works for film, too; it has an auto-profile feature that is what I normally use. You'll need a powerful processor and lots of memory if you're the impatient type.

Sometimes I use it to reduce, not eliminate, the noise or grain in images; film grain doesn't bother me as much (it depends) --random digital noise, does, however, specially when it affects the shadow areas (or the green channel).
 
vincentbenoit said:
I would argue that the contribution of grain to the texture/sharpness/mood of a picture can only be appreciated from a real print, and not from viewing the image on a computer screen.
Click to expand...

True. I like film grain. Scanned high ISO film, though, has other issues, including digital noise, and that's where sometimes I use Neat Image; otherwise, I just like to leave film grain alone.

A tool is handy to have. Some like to use their hammers to open cans of tuna; I think that a tool is only as useful as the ability to use it. Just like the photographer: it's not necessarily the camera.
 
Hi Vincent,

The image comes from an uncropped 35mm Fuji Acros neg. Developed in Diafine. Shot on a Leica M6 using a 35mm Color-Skopar lense. The neg was scanned using a Canon 4000US at 4000dpi for archival purposes. Before processing with NeatImage the image was reduced to 1024 pixels tall. The rest you see before you.

With regards to the purpose... I only intend show the capabilities of the software and its application to traditional black-and-white photography. Typically this type of software is used on high-ISO colour images from DSLRs. I wanted to demonstrate another purpose for it...

With regards to the grain itself... I'm undecided. As some have commented... a matter of taste. But I'm going to print both versions and see which one I prefer.

I'll let you know which looks better in the flesh.

Ijonas.
 
I like to think of a tool like Neat Image as something that comes in handy for an image with what I would consider excessive grain. One person's "excessive" is, of course, another person's "just right". I don't care for the rather antiseptic quality of much digital capture (which, I feel has to do with more than the mere absence of grain/noise, BTW), but I like fine grain, as opposed to coarse, in my images. Using a tool like Neat Image isn't necessarily giving in to any desire to emulate a digital "look" (though Dog knows there are plenty of people who seem to want and like that), but like any tool, it can be used well or badly.


- Barrett
 
thanks for the heads up on this one. i just happened to print some concert shots from a delta 3200 roll (shot at iso 1600) that has supersized grain. while i do like the grain in the prints (printed on cooltone rc with arista ultra cold tone developer), for the web these shots cleaned up really nice. take a look.
 
Worth remembering can add grain or at least something a bit like it ;) as well as remove it . The first Photoshop plugin dedicated to both processes as far as I know was Grain Surgery (which predated Neat Image, Noise Ninja etc). Was always expensive though. Some info:
http://www.twistedtreephoto.com/article pages/grain surgery.html

For adding grain effects loadsa different techniques to view on web. Some simple "grain" additions in this free Photoshop plugin, but plenty else that makes it fun so always worth a mention:
http://www.optikvervelabs.com/
Here's one that uses sampling:
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5
For displaying photos on web, noise or grain removal prior to jpeg compression can result in smaller files, or files of better quality if compression requirements are high eg. David's 100k files are capable of resolving the original grain. If he'd been required to post 20K files, the file which had undergone grain removal first might well have given better results.
 
I personally do not mind a bit of grain in my scans. but thanks for the heads-up. Now if I could find some software to eliminate dust specks.... :)

However, I am impressed by the way Acros looks in obviously sunny and high-contrast conditions when developed in Diafine.
What formulae and times did you use for development?

The examples I've seen from the Acros-Diafine combination have been rather patchy.

Regards,
Jin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom