![]() This was probably exacerbated with one of my test images - a photo of a small English cottage town where practically everything was textured. (But I did learn lots.) The essential problem was that, at default settings, they would tend towards over smoothing and give me 'plastic' looking results. I tried both Noise Ninja and Noiseware demos last night and was mildly disappointed. Once you come up with a satisfactory approach, whether it is using Noiseware or another program, I would be curious to know what you are doing. I don’t know if its just a operator issue, but I find the benefit of running my scans through Noiseware to generally be outweighed by the softness that it adds. I have found it much more difficult to get satisfactory results for the film than it was for the digital stuff. Since that time I bought my own Coolscan and have been scanning a lot of film and slides. ![]() Īll that being said, I originally bought Noiseware for use with digital images. ![]() I never really gave the Windows centric vs Mac centric much thought, but for the record, I am a Windows user. I purchased both but pretty much only use the plug-in. Noiseware has both a standalone version and photoshop plug-in version. The biggest deciding factor for me was that it seemed to produce good results using the automatic settings the others seemed to require more tweaking. Last year I tried the demo versions all the programs mentioned so far (Topaz excluded). I'll get the Pro version of either as I can scan in 16-bit and it would seem a waste not to take advantage of thisĪt the moment I'm leaning towards Noise Ninja because it seems to have better Mac focus in that they have a stand alone application while Neat Image doesn't, but I welcome observations based on how easy they are to use and the points above. I have no ability to shoot a calibration target as the camera and film are long gone - is either better for generating a custom profile in these circumstances rather than dealing with it image by image (the camera and film are quite consistent - mostly Kodak Gold 400, some Fuji 400 and some Kodak 200)ģ. Using MacBook Pro OS, X 10.6 and Photoshop CS4 ExtendedĢ. A number of my earlier questions here circle back to the observation that "GEM isn't very good, try Neat Image/Noise Ninja instead" so i'm thinking of giving it a go (and Christmas is coming up).īased on ease of use and incorporation into a semi-automated (or batch) workflow and given the following what would people recommend:ġ. I am scanning old negative film (and shortly slide film) using a Coolscan 5000. While I will certainly download the demos and try them out I imagine that differences will be subtle and I'm probably kidding myself that I can make 'the right' decision on that basis alone so I ask for some feedback from everyone here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |