How do you reduce noise?

[darKing]

But... I don't do HDR, so I do not know how the NR in the initial file will affect the outcome once they are combined.

cheers
afx

The basic premise will be that the part of the image that is properly exposed will take priority over the other exposures. Example. If the sky is properly exposed with the -2 file, then whatever noise that's present in the sky will also be in the final product. But the noise in the foreground that's underexposed in that file will have much less effect since the +1 file has that properly exposed.

With all that said, I don't need the noise in the shadows taken care of, but the noise in the long exposures does seem to crop up from time to time.

Are you sure? I don't do a lot of HDR (cause I don't like mine). But I always get the impression that alle the noise just sums up. I hate it.

/edit

here's one edit. it's not perfect but (for me) the noise is acceptable. The banding is what bugs me and it could use some sharpening.
For stunning HDR stuff, there's no "one click" soloution. This is a fast edit from ASP -> Luminance HDR (formerly known als "Qtpfsgui")

[B4b5]

In Bibble 5 I could set NN at 10 and get a moderate result. Now I find ASP requires only 2 to get the same result. So something has changed. But my point is that each photo has to be treated on a case by case basis and an area by area basis.

I just use Registered NN default settings. But wouldn't the NN Auto Profile setting make reasonably close results individualize on an image per image basis?

[brucet]

Lots of folks think NN is the best noise reduction program out there. I'm not so sure. I don't have a registered version, just the basic that comes with ASP/Bibble 5, so I can't comment of the full NN usability and results.

I find NN too aggresive for my work. I set it at just 2 and then resign my self to fixing noise issues in PSPx4.

I think there is a danger in trying to find one solution that will fix all problems. All of my photos are individual projects. I use a preset in ASP as a starting point then work from there. Most of the time I will use multiple layers or selections in PSPx4 to address noise as and where is occurs.

If you look at my cars at http://cre8ivephotography.com/ you will see that I have many areas that give different results. I zoom in and make selections then use either One Step Noise reduction or Camera Noise reduction in PSPx4. For me it's easier to address noise at that stage. (Car paint work can be very noisy. Sometimes I need to hit it with noise reduction more than once. Mind you getting the noise out of a metalic paint job is interesting!!!). For landscape noise often appears in the sky. So I'll do 2 files. One basic one and one just for the sky. Overlay the files and reveal the sky. You can afford to be more aggressive on the sky.

My point is to be flexible and address each photo on a one by one basis. Not easy though if time is money and numerous photos need to be done. I charge by the hour and can recover costs on difficult jobs. But for realestate I can imagine it being rather cut throat.

Regards

[afx]

With all that said, I don't need the noise in the shadows taken care of, but the noise in the long exposures does seem to crop up from time to time.

I guess you will need even lower setting then.

And of course, there is the new raw noise reduction that was introduced in the last Bibble release before AS.
Apart from using it on my Oly P&S where I use it together with NN, I rarely touch it.
But that might be worth another round of experimentation, using it with rather low values.
In contrast to all other methods, this works before demosaicing. As you only want to remove noise in parts that are supposed to be properly exposed a hint of that might do the trick when applied carefully.

cheers
afx

[df]

OK, I'm finally getting back to this. I've tried doing a few things using the settings suggested here. First off, I've set Photomatix to a preset that I've been using for a long time.

PM Settings by cabbiinc, on Flickr
I have this all typed out somewhere but as this doesn't really pertain to anything the graphic will do. My point is that I'm using this setting on all of the examples I'm uploading. The only thing I'm changing is the noise reduction setting when you load the files into the program and I'm making note of that here. The actual noise reduction is set to 100%, I'm just changing which files get the noise reduction.
I'm showing the full image and also under the chair on the right as that seems to be the only tough spot in this particular image.

Straight out of Photomatix here's the results.
RAW file fed straight into PM with no noise reduction at all.

No Noise Red by cabbiinc, on Flickr

No Noise Red closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Next is the usual setting that I use, which is noise reduction on underexposed images only.

Usual Noise Red by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Usual Noise Red closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Next is the Normal Exposure and Under Exposure setting.

Norml Exp and Under Exp by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Norml Exp and Under Exp closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Next is noise reduction on all images.

All Noise Red by cabbiinc, on Flickr

All Noise Red closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Next is AfterShot Pro with the Noise Ninja settings provided by afx.

ASP NN Presets by cabbiinc, on Flickr

ASP NN Presets closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Next is ASP's Wavelet Denoise.

ASP Wavelet by cabbiinc, on Flickr

ASP Wavele closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

Next is my Standard DPP setting for comparison. I don't normally use DPP unless one image is rotated the the others aren't (shooting atop a pole and sensor gets confused) or if I really need to change the White Balance. Noise in DPP is set to Lum 2, Chrom 1. It's rather conservative.

DPP by cabbiinc, on Flickr

DPP closeup by cabbiinc, on Flickr

So there's my preliminaries. Any one of these could honestly be used as there's just not a huge difference between them.

[brucet]

In your Photomatix settings try changing your Smooth Highlights up to about 50 and see what your results are like.
Also you may try backing off a little with your Details contrast.
I've found Photomatix is very sensitive to the smallest changes.

As I've stated before I'm not sure what ASP is doing that Bibble 5 wasn't doing. But ASP seems to be less able to handle noise. I'm sure it's just a matter of me learning those changes. But once you get noise at this stage programs, such as Photomatix, are prone to exagerate the problem.

My short term solution is to worry about noise, if and or when it occurs, in PSPx4.

Regards

[afx]

As I've stated before I'm not sure what ASP is doing that Bibble 5 wasn't doing. But ASP seems to be less able to handle noise.

AS sharpening is borked... Gives you more color noise.
If you skip that and only NN USM or WS you should be fine.

cheers
afx

[brucet]

Initially I used 200 sharpening in ASP. But I'm now inclinde to agree with afx. I fix any issues in PSPx4. I had a preset in ASP that I thought was working but now I get inconsistant results. The dangers of making comments before a good work out!!!

[grooveman]

Have you tried the Wavlet Denoise plugin by spoilerhead?

http://www.aftershotpro.com/plugins/ind ... ed#plugins

I have found that it does wonders with color noise. It can also help with noise in general. I find that I first go to Wavelet Denoise to remove the color noise, then add just a touch of noise removal on the Luminance slider, then I go to NN (I have the un-registered version), and add just a touch there -- and it really seems to work for me. As a B5 user, I also used to use pixie on really noisy photos as well, and that did wonders on some photos -- but alas, it is not (yet, I hope) available for ASP...

[claudermilk]

I used to use Pixie when it first was released for Bibble, it did wonders. Then the Wavelet plugins came along with the S+P removal option and for me Pixie became redundant. IIRC, the S+P removal feature is based on Pixie? I'm sure I recall reading that in an old thread on the Bibble site.

[spoilerhead]

hi there

S+P is a much much more primitive algorithm than pixie, designed to eliminate the most common residual noise that WD leave back and WS amplifies.
An improvement there is on my TODO list, but it may take some time until i have time and passion for it.