Noise reduction software

[Netskimmer]

I have been looking at the noise reduction software and the same names keep popping up, Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Topaz DeNoise and a few others. They all seem to be about the same price and one doesn't really seem to stand out as being better. My main questions are:

1. Is it worth the 'pro' level price to get support for 16bit + files as well as other bells and whistles?
2. I assume that getting the plug-in version (assuming you have the host software) would be better for workflow. Is this correct?
3. A few people have mentioned that while none of them are clearly better than the others, some may be better for specific types of noise reduction than the others. Is there a way for me to find out which program excels in which areas?

I realize some of these questions are kind of broad but I'm still quite new to photo editing. At this point most of what I do is just cropping, adjusting WB, contrast, brightness, ect and the occasional cloning.

 

[Buckster]

Do you post process in 16 bits, or do you intend to do so in the future? If you do, you'll probably want your noise software to work with you on that.

Do you use LightRoom? If you do, it already has a VERY good noise reduction section built into it.

In addition to LightRoom's de-noise processing, which I much prefer to use these days on the front end of my PP workflow, I've used all three that you mentioned: Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Topaz DeNoise. I currently have Noise Ninja and Topaz DeNoise. I sometimes feel a need to use one while working in Photoshop, usually because I forgot to deal with it using LR before I got started. When that happens, I typically reach for Noise Ninja, and come away satisfied with the results.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Yeah, just use the LR3. But most of the time I leave the noise how it was. When it is noisy, I turn it to b&w most of the time. Dont pixel peep too much. Just embrace the noise. Most of my wedding work is noisy as hell. I do 0 noise reduction. I shoot with ISO800, 1600, 3200 quite a bit.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I use neat image. I just have the home edition which works well.

 

[jonmphotography]

Discussion and/or promotion of software piracy, either directly or indirectly will not be tolerated.

 

[Buckster]

I would get a free trial of LR4 if you havent already,...

It's a bad idea to in any way, shape or form advocate copyright infringement or theft around here, including for software. Most of us pay for our software exactly as we expect folks to pay for our services, and are more than willing to report those who use stolen copies.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Im a big fan of Lightroom 4 for noise reduction, along with other corrections. I usually think its mostly hype when a new version of software products come out, but in the case of LR3 over LR2, and LR4 over LR3 i have been very impressed. There are noticeable differences to the quality of the final product after editing them. I dont know about those other programs but I do know about this one. I would get a free trial of LR4 if you havent already...

Are you running a legitimate wedding photography business?

 

[Netskimmer]

Thanks for the responses guys. I actually ordered LR4 Saturday night from Amazon, its on it's way and should be here sometime this week. I will work on becoming more familiar with it and wait to see if I need any extra NR software down the road.

 

[Dao]

I'd LR3 and later upgraded to LR4. Both are quite good as far as noise reduction concern.

 

[Netskimmer]

Why? LR3 is $99, LR 4 upgrade is $79 ($178 total) LR4 is $149.

 

[bratkinson]

Just an FYI, LR4 won't load or run under Windows XP. That's why I went with LR3 a couple of months ago.

FWIW, I'm finally starting to build my new computer, Win 7 and all. So then I can get the more current versions of software.

 

[nickzou]

It's a bad idea to in any way, shape or form advocate copyright infringement or theft around here, including for software. Most of us pay for our software exactly as we expect folks to pay for our services, and are more than willing to report those who use stolen copies.

Seriously? We're not allowed to talk about the free trial version that is offered directly from Adobe? The completely legal version? Pirating software illegally and using a trial to see if you want to upgrade are completely different things.

 

[terri]

It's a bad idea to in any way, shape or form advocate copyright infringement or theft around here, including for software. Most of us pay for our software exactly as we expect folks to pay for our services, and are more than willing to report those who use stolen copies.

Seriously? We're not allowed to talk about the free trial version that is offered directly from Adobe? The completely legal version? Pirating software illegally and using a trial to see if you want to upgrade are completely different things.

Yes, of course they are, and discussions about legitimate free trial offers are certainly okay. The comments in question, however, were suggesting how to turn the free trial into a permanent program - that is quite a different matter and the comments were deleted, so you missed it.

I appreciate it makes the thread read a little strangely, but that is what happened, and we can't let it stand. Thanks for understanding!

 

[BlueMeanieTSi]

I'm not sure what their terms of use states however profitting while using free trial versions often violates the terms of use.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Why? LR3 is $99, LR 4 upgrade is $79 ($178 total) LR4 is $149.

Because you can (or could) buy LR3 for as low as $49 and then get a free upgrade from Adobe to LR4. I understand that the process was long and painful for some and quick and easy for others.