4/17/2023 0 Comments Imagenomic noiseware reviews![]() Guess which is which? (Results indicated below the image). One image is the original, one is filtered with Noise Ninja, and the other with Noiseware. The images below are from the same photo and show a small portion of an image cropped from a D100 shot taken with the 85/f1.4 at a wide aperature (f1.8) and ISO400. I figured before I spend the money I should demo Noiseware to compare to Noise Ninja. So yesterday I wanted to go buy a product like Noise Ninja and I check the forums again and read some good things about Imagenomic's Noiseware program. Much the same with still image editing.I had recently played with demos of Neat Image and Noise Ninja and concluded Noise Ninja was better/easier. After that any further reductions were irrelevant in terms of my overall workflow. With my first 286 CPU the compile times dropped to 30 minutes and with a 386 CPU the compile times were less than a minute. I remember doing program compiles that with an 8086 computer would take an hour to complete. I was doing batch processing of a couple thousand images and at that time it would take about 40 minutes per batch with the Wintel workstation and less than half as much time with a Mac Pro workstation (same Xenon processor and amount or RAM only a much more efficient operating system from Apple). When someone says that an application is processor intensive I have to wonder what exactly they mean and how many files they are processing each day. Overall the Topaz suite of applications are the best I have found at any price. For a single image Photoshop worked quite well and how much time is not important now that I am now longer processing great numbers of files. I was doing batch processing of thousands of image files each week and I wanted the application that in auto mode would produce the best results. The last time I did this it was a tie between Topaz deNoise and CS6 and Topaz took a fraction of the time to apply. This takes less than 1 hour to do and when I am done I know which one produces the best results. With a person's face it is easy to see where the tonal range has been compressed which results in plastic looking skin. When I have the 4 images all on the screen as an 8x10 picture it is easy to compare the applications and I look for detail preservation and especially the overall tonality. I then take a good test image of a person's face and make four 4x5 inch images and use a different NR on three of them and the fourth one I do with CS6 manually. I periodically download 3 NR applications and install the trial versions on a computer. I hope ON1 is able to improve its non-raw noise reduction soon. It is for those special (to me) photos that I want to spend time with that gets the extra treatment. Most of the time LR noise reduction works fine for me. Quite truthfully I do not do noise reduction on a regular basis. I hated having to start PL4 just for noise. ![]() I only upgraded to PL4 because of the noise reduction and am glad to have the on1 option now. I was one of the unfortunate to discover their upgrad policy has no grace period! If you upgrade close to the release of a new program you end up paying for the next upgrade too. Personally I find DXO a more irritating company than ON1. He prefers speed on loading due to his favorite setting, and de-noising non-RAW files. To be fair, Matt is staying with Topaz due to his workflow issues. I will agree on1 support can be irritating, I just never had a problem with them. I am very aware of what it means, but I feel secure with my chosen protections. I understand your concern with running in admin mode, but for me it is not an issue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |