My experience with DXO vs. DPP vs. no noise reduction

[Fast Glass]

Looks like the second from last is the best, it has the most dietail and much finer grained noise compared to DPP. The one with CS5 is very close andbut I wouldstill give a slight edge to DxO, but it's very good also.


Here is a situation I routinely come across in birding,soft lighting but high ISO.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/6685.IMG_5F00_0555-100_2500_-crop.JPG[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/5025.IMG_5F00_0555_5F00_DxO-TIFF-100_2500_-crop.JPG[/img]


ISO 3200 pushed one stop, 100% crop. I think the difference is clear, but I won't tell just yet! Try to guess which is DPP and DxO.


In higher contrast scenes with deeper shadows were the noise can be even worse the difference can be even more, but I choose this expample because it's closer to what I or other people would shoot in real life. Butif youhave an important image it's nice to have better noise reduction. I have a light hand in noise reduction and this expample could probably NR a little more if you wanted.


Cheers,


John.

[freelanceshots]

Has anyone used noise ninja? A lot of the newpaper orgs use it.


Fast glass what are the noise reduction settings in DPP that you are using? I find that if you tweak the the 2 noise setting in DPP plus play with the sharpness you can improve on the image that I took and make it look much closer to CS5 and Dxo image.


Using CS5 I can go in and do way more to control noise with different selections and tricks so for me that is where I do all my tweaking. For the person who does not know or want to hassle with the extra steps then the DXO one step noise reduction is probably the better solution.


I think it would make for a good demo/assignment for someone to come up with an image that needs help with noise and they submit it here so that people can download it and do their best with what ever tools they use and see which one is the best. The top picks tell what they did in detail to achieve their high marks. I think we all might, could or will learn something.


My question to myself is DXO worth spending the extra 170 dollars? Can I achieve similar results with what I have on hand already. Sure if I had money falling out of my pockets I

[William]

@Bryan in your shots I think DPP looks better, but softer. Unfortunately that

[freelanceshots]

Anyone have a RAW image file of a good, well composed image that has noise issues that we can use? We seem to have a variety of people who have access to different software so I think it would be fun to see the differences. I will look into the topaz software for $80.00 but I will leave that up to someone else to use it. I will look for a noisy image of mine and see what I can come up with.

[Fast Glass]

it looks like DXO is the second one in your set.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner![]


At Bryan.


I used 4 on the luminance and 20 (max) on the crominance. I tried tweeking it some more but it just became a trade off between how sharp to how much noise, any sharper the noise would be much higher and any more NR itwouldbe much softer.


Interesting thread and even more how it got started[]


John.

[neuroanatomist]

For me, it's about more than just noise. I tried Noise Ninja, and found it similar to DxO (and better than DPP and PS) for what it does. I haven't tried Topaz. However, DxO is a complete package and it's lens corrections are better than those available with ACR.


Here's an example of multiple corrections needed, noise, sharpness, and especially geometry:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/Art-Appreciation-Uncorrected.JPG[/img]

[Fast Glass]

Thats exactly why I bought it, coming from DPP it was a no brainer. Plus I got the standard version on sale $100, and the Elite was $200. They have sale every year if your interested.


John.

[MikeG2012]

Any of you guys have experience with the NIK noise reduction software? I

[freelanceshots]

I'm liking the DXO pro the more I use it. I don't use all the features but I like the noise reduction and chromatic aberration features. Wish they offered a basic no thrills version for around 30 bucks.

[William]

(Post error - sorry)