Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NeatImage vs. Noise Ninja 2...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:24:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi!
My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

More about : neatimage noise ninja

Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:24:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer commented courteously ...

> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially
> high up in the mountains where the sky is a nice
> dark blue. Can anybody recommend one tool over the
> other, or something else entirely?

Hi, Volker.

I don't use any special noise reduction utilities, but
after years of fighting scanner noise, then digital camera
noise on occasion, I was delighted at how effective
Corel's (formerly Jasc) Paint Shop Pro 9 Digital Camera
Noise Reduction (DCNR) filter is.

I'm not suggesting you buy PSP 9 just for DCNR but if you
own a previous version of PSP and/or are in the market for
a very competant graphics editor at a moderate price (US
$130), do consider PSP9.

Good luck!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:24:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:24:07 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Volker Hetzer
<volker.hetzer@gmx.de> wrote:
>My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
>the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
>that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)

No experience with Noise Ninja, but have been using Neat Image for years.
Give the free demos a try for yourself.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Related resources
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:24:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:cs6oth$gce$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> Hi!
> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
> mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
> Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
> entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
> the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
> that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker

I dont know about Noise Ninja, but NeatImage is very good at removing excess
noise. If your pictures are overly noisy, however, trying to remove all or
most of the
noise will remove some detail and make your image look "plastic". With
NeatImage,
you shouldn't set the slider to more then 60% removal.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:24:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:cs6oth$gce$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> Hi!
> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
> mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
> Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
> entirely?

NeatImage is nice, but I think NoiseFixer is a lot easier to use, plus it is
cheaper. I have been able to get rid of noise in pictures that NeatImage
would not even touch. NeatImage has problems with black dogs, for example.
January 14, 2005 5:36:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Hi!
> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
> mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
> Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
> entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
> the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
> that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>


I'm going to try the retail "neatimage +" that comes with a photoshop plugin
that can work in a layer. Seems you can then selectively apply it (like to
the sky or shadows only) so it doesn't affect fine details or adjust the
layer to control the amount and easily see it. Then you can be more
agressive with the settings or use different setting for different parts of
a scene. From their site:

========
Photoshop plug-in version of Neat Image enables applying noise reduction and
sharpening exactly where is required: in a Photoshop layer, channel, or
selection

Neat Image plug-in can run in Photoshop actions and apply required analysis
and filtration completely automatically
========
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 8:51:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:36:51 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Stacey
<fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>I'm going to try the retail "neatimage +" that comes with a photoshop plugin
>that can work in a layer. Seems you can then selectively apply it (like to
>the sky or shadows only) so it doesn't affect fine details or adjust the
>layer to control the amount and easily see it. Then you can be more
>agressive with the settings or use different setting for different parts of
>a scene.

Yes, that is the case.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:09:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:cs6oth$gce$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>
>>Hi!
>>My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>>mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>>Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>>entirely?
>
>
> NeatImage is nice, but I think NoiseFixer is a lot easier to use, plus it is
> cheaper. I have been able to get rid of noise in pictures that NeatImage
> would not even touch. NeatImage has problems with black dogs, for example.
>
>
Hi!
I'll have a look at that one too.

Thanks a lot!
Volker
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:36:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34pb4jF4dtbpiU2@individual.net...
SNIP
> I'm going to try the retail "neatimage +" that comes with a
> photoshop plugin that can work in a layer. Seems you can
> then selectively apply it (like to the sky or shadows only) so
> it doesn't affect fine details or adjust the layer to control the
> amount and easily see it.

Yes, this is the best way to use it, especially on problematic images.
With a layer mask you can paint-in (or out) whatever you want treated,
and you can reverse any changes by changing the mask. This gives
total control, in addition to the tuning that is possible within
NeatImage (and it is highly tunable).

Bart
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 5:45:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Archived from Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:36:51
-0500:

>Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>> mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>> Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>> entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
>> the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
>> that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>>
>
>
>I'm going to try the retail "neatimage +" that comes with a photoshop plugin

[snip]

FWIW. I've used Neat Image for a long time, but no more. Recently I've found
the Helicon Noise Filter and like it very much. I use the latest Pro Version
2.02. It does an excellent job especially on high noise images and is very
easy to use. It has a Photoshop plugin and handles NEF and CRW raw images.
There is a free version available that lacks the full functionality of the
Pro Version. http://heliconfilter.com/pages/

Vic
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:22:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use NoiseWare Pro


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:24:07 +0100, Volker Hetzer
<volker.hetzer@gmx.de> wrote:

>Hi!
>My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
>the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
>that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>
>Lots of Greetings!
>Volker

D Cheung
http://www.opaltonsolutions.com
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 4:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>
>>Hi!
>>My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>>mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>>Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>>entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
>>the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
>>that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>>
>
>
>
> I'm going to try the retail "neatimage +" that comes with a photoshop plugin
> that can work in a layer. Seems you can then selectively apply it (like to
> the sky or shadows only) so it doesn't affect fine details or adjust the
> layer to control the amount and easily see it. Then you can be more
> agressive with the settings or use different setting for different parts of
> a scene. From their site:

I tried it standalone and it did leave the rest of the picture alone all
on its own. I got the picture developed at 7.9x11.8in (20x30cm) and was
pretty impressed. Absolutely no difference in the non-sky part but a
much cleaner sky. (The non-sky part was mostly grass so any loss of
detail would have been obvious.)

Ditto for noise ninja although the sky wasn't as good.
I think I'm going for the full version of neatimage too, but more for
the ability to write non-jpg files.
But I still have to look at NoiseWare Pro.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
January 16, 2005 4:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> Then you can be
>> more agressive with the settings or use different setting for different
>> parts of a scene. From their site:
>
> I tried it standalone and it did leave the rest of the picture alone all
> on its own. I got the picture developed at 7.9x11.8in (20x30cm) and was
> pretty impressed. Absolutely no difference in the non-sky part but a
> much cleaner sky.

You didn't look as closely as I did. It does change subtlely things like
tree bark and grass detail etc if you look closely unless you crank back
the NR. For most people this wouldn't be an issue as it does take more than
a click of the mouse to go there...

--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 4:36:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

D Cheung wrote:
> I use NoiseWare Pro
O man, how many noise remover are there? :-)

Lots of Greetings and thanks!
Volker
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 4:41:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> "Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> news:cs6oth$gce$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>
>>> Hi!
>>> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>>> mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>>> Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>>> entirely?
>>
>>
>>
>> NeatImage is nice, but I think NoiseFixer is a lot easier to use, plus
>> it is
>> cheaper. I have been able to get rid of noise in pictures that NeatImage
>> would not even touch. NeatImage has problems with black dogs, for
>> example.
>>
>>
> Hi!
> I'll have a look at that one too.
The helicon program? Had a look. Haven't seen the printouts yet but was
pretty unimpressed by the way noisefixer smoothed the whole image.
NeatImage and NoiseNinja cleaned up the sky only and left the rest
alone.
So, I *need* to use photoshop (elements is what I got) for cutting out
the non sky before. Then I cut out a few clouds too because I liked them
the way they were but the result was white rings around the clouds.
I'll try a run with the default settings and the whole sky and see how
it turns out. So far my favourite is neatimage.

Lots of Greetings and thanks!
Volker
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 10:42:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>>Then you can be
>>>more agressive with the settings or use different setting for different
>>>parts of a scene. From their site:
>>
>>I tried it standalone and it did leave the rest of the picture alone all
>>on its own. I got the picture developed at 7.9x11.8in (20x30cm) and was
>>pretty impressed. Absolutely no difference in the non-sky part but a
>>much cleaner sky.
>
>
> You didn't look as closely as I did. It does change subtlely things like
> tree bark and grass detail etc if you look closely unless you crank back
> the NR. For most people this wouldn't be an issue as it does take more than
> a click of the mouse to go there...
Hm. Looked again, to no avail. Here's the link to three pictures,
the original, one with the default (no very low frequency noise) and one
with the extra low noise. Maybe you can point me to the right spots?
http://service.gmx.net/mc/4X0eXwlTRGKg5vcmusczL9DG8yF2y...
Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten", then select the tree images
and click "Datei" and download.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
January 17, 2005 2:10:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> You didn't look as closely as I did. It does change subtlely things like
>> tree bark and grass detail etc if you look closely unless you crank back
>> the NR. For most people this wouldn't be an issue as it does take more
>> than a click of the mouse to go there...
> Hm. Looked again, to no avail. Here's the link to three pictures,
> the original, one with the default (no very low frequency noise) and one
> with the extra low noise. Maybe you can point me to the right spots?
>

Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the cleaned
ones there are no needles on the pine branches. They were turned into
blobs. Like I said some people don't see this and in "normal" prints you'd
probably never notice it. Using my technique, you could run the NR at a
higher level so the sky was cleaner yet still maintain every detail in the
lower portion of the shot. On higher rez, sharper images this becomes even
more apparent.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 12:35:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the cleaned
> ones there are no needles on the pine branches.
Sorry, I'm, still lost. Are we talking about the same pictures here?
I can't remember any pine trees and I can't see them on the picture.
Would it be ok if you drew a little circle or cut out the part with the
blob, compress it down as much as possible and send it to me so that I
can look at the same spot in the high res image? My email is valid.
Does the problem occur in both denoised images?
(Btw, I've noticed something else. The printouts contain a lot of dark
where the image does have still details on it. But right now I'm looking
at the original with nikon editor.)

> They were turned into
> blobs. Like I said some people don't see this and in "normal" prints you'd
> probably never notice it. Using my technique, you could run the NR at a
> higher level so the sky was cleaner yet still maintain every detail in the
> lower portion of the shot. On higher rez, sharper images this becomes even
> more apparent.
Yes, I fully agree, cutting out the sky does solve that problem. I've
got some test images in development and I'll see how this turns out,
especially with the tree branch in the sky on the left side. I didn't
select that one and I'm hoping that the white circle stuff won't
happen with this.

Lots of Greetings and Thanks!
Volker
January 17, 2005 4:35:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the
>> cleaned ones there are no needles on the pine branches.
> Sorry, I'm, still lost. Are we talking about the same pictures here?

OK it's grass, not pine brush but the details are gone in the shadows. I
expect on the original uncompressed file it would be even worse?



> Would it be ok if you drew a little circle or cut out the part with the
> blob, compress it down as much as possible and send it to me so that I
> can look at the same spot in the high res image?

Compression is part of why you can't see the difference, it destroys details
as well. I made a web page so you can see where I'm talking about and maybe
if you look at the uncompressed originals you can see this better. Again
it's not a huge problem on this file, but you could run a stronger NR and
totally clean up the sky if you used this other technique without harming
ANY of the details.

http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/NR.html

And here's a shot I took with my E300 using this techique. The original is a
20MB tiff so some details are lost in the downsizing but it shows how clean
you can get the sky and still have crisp details.


http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/weblake.html


--

Stacey
January 17, 2005 4:35:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> Compression is part of why you can't see the difference, it destroys details
> as well.


See what you think of this:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
It's using D70 fine jpeg compression on the left, Nikon Capture noise
reduction in the middle & RAW on the right 400% magnified so you can see
exactly what's happening (800% is even easier to tell). Look at the
crazy texture in the reddish band at the right and the subtle
undulations of the flat wall at the left side with paint brush texture
then how much the noise reduced version is posterized and those
paintbrush strokes are gone. That noise reduction was set at the minimum
to be smoother than the jpeg & the Capture noise reduction was pretty
crude in the steps available. I'm amazed how much more noise RAW has!
I'd like to try these super enlarged comparisons with Neatimage, etc
starting with RAW. I know you can't see this much detail with bare eyes
but for big prints this is the reality that contributes to the gestalt.
When saving a jpeg in photoshop try zooming in 800% before saving &
adjust the compression slider to see exactly what's happening.
January 17, 2005 9:56:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> Compression is part of why you can't see the difference, it destroys
>> details as well.
>
>
> See what you think of this:
> I'm amazed how much more noise RAW has!
>

I'm not. All the camera makers apply noise reduction and many increase it as
they turn up the ISO to cover up sensor noise. People THINK they are
getting clean images at the high ISO with no price to pay but that's not
the case. Not only do the -real- RAW files have more noise, there is also
more detail. I'm going to always use RAW and then selectively apply NR
where it is a "problem" rather than smearing the whole image with it. Like
you said you can't see each of these details by themselves, but it adds to
the "snap" the print has. It's one reason I'm not that concerned about
noise, I'd rather have noise and a snappy print than zero noise and it look
like plastic.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:22:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>>Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the
>>>cleaned ones there are no needles on the pine branches.
>>
>>Sorry, I'm, still lost. Are we talking about the same pictures here?
>
>
> OK it's grass, not pine brush but the details are gone in the shadows. I
> expect on the original uncompressed file it would be even worse?
Hi!
I think I've found my problem. In adobe I always cut out the sky, (new
layer), let the filter work on that layer and then pasted it back. So
the filter softenened the blue-white edge quite heavily and the
resultant recombination was bug ugly. Today I found out that you can
simply select the sky, let the plugin work on the whole image and then
adobe thows the not-selected part away!
Ugly white rims much reduced. I guess I can get rid of the rest by
creating a new layer and painting the non-sky part blue. As soon as I
figure out how...

Lots of Greetings and thanks!
Volker
January 23, 2005 7:22:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I think I've found my problem. In adobe I always cut out the sky, (new
> layer), let the filter work on that layer and then pasted it back. So
> the filter softenened the blue-white edge quite heavily and the
> resultant recombination was bug ugly. Today I found out that you can
> simply select the sky, let the plugin work on the whole image and then
> adobe thows the not-selected part away!
> Ugly white rims much reduced. I guess I can get rid of the rest by
> creating a new layer and painting the non-sky part blue. As soon as I
> figure out how...


I'm not sure why those two techniques would give any different effect.
They are both using the magic wand if I understand. One way is to
duplicate the whole layer & erase out the non-sky with a soft edged
eraser. Or use the magic want but then feather the selection. The best
way is use a layer mask (kind of obscure technique using channels but
not that tricky really) so you can paint on & off to correct mistakes.
January 24, 2005 2:46:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

>One way is to
> duplicate the whole layer & erase out the non-sky with a soft edged
> eraser.

That's the easiest to me, I make a BIG soft edged eraser which makes the
edge softer and don't worry about getting trasision perfectly on the edge
of the sky.

I make a duplicate layer and apply NI to this duplicate layer. It's simple
to see where you are working by clicking the "eye" in the layer dialog box
on the background layer and then erase anything that you want to save
details in on the upper layer (the backgound is invisisble now and the
eraser turns stuff blank). Then reclick the "eye" on the background and
flatten layers. You can't see =any= trace of where this effect was done
using this technique.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:32:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>> I think I've found my problem. In adobe I always cut out the sky, (new
>> layer), let the filter work on that layer and then pasted it back. So
>> the filter softenened the blue-white edge quite heavily and the
>> resultant recombination was bug ugly. Today I found out that you can
>> simply select the sky, let the plugin work on the whole image and then
>> adobe thows the not-selected part away!
>> Ugly white rims much reduced. I guess I can get rid of the rest by
>> creating a new layer and painting the non-sky part blue. As soon as I
>> figure out how...
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why those two techniques would give any different effect.
This is the link: http://service.gmx.net/mc/xqz0eSpNqSltLOxR0BovdV3OsX7JC...


Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten" and have a look at test.tif and
test2.tif.

I think I've got to experiment with gradients next.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
January 24, 2005 2:32:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>>
>>> I think I've found my problem. In adobe I always cut out the sky,
>>> (new layer), let the filter work on that layer and then pasted it
>>> back. So
>>> the filter softenened the blue-white edge quite heavily and the
>>> resultant recombination was bug ugly. ...
>>> I guess I can get rid of the rest by
>>> creating a new layer and painting the non-sky part blue. As soon as I
>>> figure out how...
>>
>
> This is the link: http://service.gmx.net/mc/xqz0eSpNqSltLOxR0BovdV3OsX7JC...
>
>
> Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten" and have a look at test.tif and
> test2.tif.
>
> I think I've got to experiment with gradients next.


Feathering the selection will probably fix that. Also you can expand the
selection by a few pixels to move the selection into the hill & include
more sky.
January 24, 2005 11:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> This is the link: http://service.gmx.net/mc/xqz0eSpNqSltLOxR0BovdV3OsX7JC...
>
>
> Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten" and have a look at test.tif and
> test2.tif.

http://stephe_2.tripod.com/test/NR2.html

This was done using layers as described in my other post, the only thing
you're seeing is jpeg artifacts from the extreem compression you applied to
the original. I'm not sure how you're trying to do this but using the
select tool ISN'T the right way to do this. Layers and the eraser with a
fuzzy edged brush is.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:46:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>
>>This is the link: http://service.gmx.net/mc/xqz0eSpNqSltLOxR0BovdV3OsX7JC...
>>
>>
>>Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten" and have a look at test.tif and
>>test2.tif.
>
>
> http://stephe_2.tripod.com/test/NR2.html
>
> This was done using layers as described in my other post, the only thing
> you're seeing is jpeg artifacts from the extreem compression you applied to
> the original. I'm not sure how you're trying to do this but using the
> select tool ISN'T the right way to do this. Layers and the eraser with a
> fuzzy edged brush is.
Yes, you are right, it does look good.
So you copy the whole picture into a new layer and later before the
merging get rid of the non-sky part by using the fuzzy eraser, right?

Ok so that's one technique that works. Thanks!

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:51:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think I've found my problem. In adobe I always cut out the sky,
>>>> (new layer), let the filter work on that layer and then pasted it
>>>> back. So
>>>> the filter softenened the blue-white edge quite heavily and the
>>>> resultant recombination was bug ugly. ...
>
> >>> I guess I can get rid of the rest by
>
>>>> creating a new layer and painting the non-sky part blue. As soon as I
>>>> figure out how...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is the link:
>> http://service.gmx.net/mc/xqz0eSpNqSltLOxR0BovdV3OsX7JC...
>>
>>
>> Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten" and have a look at test.tif
>> and test2.tif.
>>
>> I think I've got to experiment with gradients next.
>
>
>
> Feathering the selection will probably fix that. Also you can expand the
> selection by a few pixels to move the selection into the hill & include
> more sky.
Tries featering too. You are right, it looks good as well. I have to
play a bit with all the parameters for the fine tuning.

Btw. the reason I'm bothering with all this is that in autumn I plan a
hiking trip to tibet and at that altitude the sky will always be rather
dark and I really don't wand to tow a big heavy SLR or DSLR after me...

Lots of Greetings and Thanks!
Volker
!