Digital BW, The Print

Hello,

I just read Uwe Steinmueller review of PhotoAcute Studio Professional:

http://tiny.cc/KjJkX

I downloaded the trial version from www.photoacute.com and it does
appear to be able to add a certain amount of details when I stack 4 or
more RAW files.

I was wondering if anyone in the group has real world "from capture to
print" experience on the benefits of PhotoAcute? Since BW generally
benefits from more details or resolution, I would assume this is a
very interesting little piece of software.

Denis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" <thedesbois@...> 
wrote:
> I just read Uwe Steinmueller review of PhotoAcute Studio Professional:
> 
> http://tiny.cc/KjJkX
> 
> I downloaded the trial version from www.photoacute.com and it does
> appear to be able to add a certain amount of details when I stack 4 or
> more RAW files.

Never used it but seems like a lot of work for a little improvement in detail especially using 6 
images. If shooting 6 images you might as well stitch those 6 images together for a real 
resolution gain.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" <thedesbois@...> 
wrote:

> I downloaded the trial version from www.photoacute.com and it does
> appear to be able to add a certain amount of details when I stack 4 or
> more RAW files.

I downloaded the trial out of curiosity.  The detail enhancement was mildly interesting but 
the noise reduction is what caught my eye.  I had a bunch of tripod night shots all done 
mistakenly at 3200 ISO.  (new camera, jet lag, lack of sleep etc.)  The noise was so bad they 
looked like pointillist paintings. These had always been my test images for noise reduction 
programs with nothing coming close to creating a usable image.  The PhotoAcute actually 
made it seem a possibility.  The higher ISO potential is worth exploring for me.

Robert, What other noise programs did you try? 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
robert49brake
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:20 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: (Tending toward OT) PhotoAcute Studio
Professional: any real world experienc

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" <thedesbois@...> 
wrote:

> I downloaded the trial version from www.photoacute.com and it does
> appear to be able to add a certain amount of details when I stack 4 or
> more RAW files.

I downloaded the trial out of curiosity. The detail enhancement was mildly
interesting but 
the noise reduction is what caught my eye. I had a bunch of tripod night
shots all done 
mistakenly at 3200 ISO. (new camera, jet lag, lack of sleep etc.) The noise
was so bad they 
looked like pointillist paintings. These had always been my test images for
noise reduction 
programs with nothing coming close to creating a usable image. The
PhotoAcute actually 
made it seem a possibility. The higher ISO potential is worth exploring for
me.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> 
wrote:
>
> Robert, What other noise programs did you try? 

Noise Ninja, one from NIK I believe and another I don't remember (was a couple of years 
ago, about the time that CS3 came out, ACR 4.0 was the comparison)  I tried them on 
individual images and decided that nothing could save those images (the 3200 ones) and 
passed on the whole idea of third party software and just went back to low ISO shooting 
with Nikon's in camera noise reduction for long exposures.  The idea of using the multishot 
approach never crossed my mind until I looked at the PhotoAcute program.  I just happened 
to have saved a couple of sets of those 3200 shots that I had thought to run through HDR 
so they were available to try with the PhotoAcute.  

I should have some time next week to shoot something with the PhotoAcute multishot 
approach in mind.  One thing I noted about the PhotoAcute method was that color noise was 
extremely reduced without losing any detail at all and that I could further reduce luminance 
noise in ACR until I was unhappy with the detail loss.  I'm not big on 3rd party software 
having always felt that PS had the technique somewhere inside it but this looks worth a bit 
of time.

Happy to read that my (Tending toward OT) question has generated some
new ideas and ways of shooting & working.

:-)

Denis

 The idea of using the multishot 
> approach never crossed my mind until I looked at the PhotoAcute
program.  I just happened 
> to have saved a couple of sets of those 3200 shots that I had
thought to run through HDR 
> so they were available to try with the PhotoAcute.  
> 
> I should have some time next week to shoot something with the
PhotoAcute multishot 
> approach in mind.  One thing I noted about the PhotoAcute method was
that color noise was 
> extremely reduced without losing any detail at all and that I could
further reduce luminance 
> noise in ACR until I was unhappy with the detail loss.  I'm not big
on 3rd party software 
> having always felt that PS had the technique somewhere inside it but
this looks worth a bit 
> of time.
>

I would seriously consider looking outside the box for this answer; noise
reduction has not been Adobes strong suit. You may consider looking at
Noiseware Professional by Imagenomic as well as Neat Image. Both can be
stand alone or plug in. Noise is one of those things not so much to be
feared but to be conquered. I am a big user of Noiseware. I also have Neat
Image but use it a quite a bit les often than Noiseware. The price for
either is not much. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
robert49brake
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:11 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: (Tending toward OT) PhotoAcute Studio
Professional: any real world experienc

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> 
wrote:
>
> Robert, What other noise programs did you try? 

Noise Ninja, one from NIK I believe and another I don't remember (was a
couple of years 
ago, about the time that CS3 came out, ACR 4.0 was the comparison) I tried
them on 
individual images and decided that nothing could save those images (the 3200
ones) and 
passed on the whole idea of third party software and just went back to low
ISO shooting 
with Nikon's in camera noise reduction for long exposures. The idea of using
the multishot 
approach never crossed my mind until I looked at the PhotoAcute program. I
just happened 
to have saved a couple of sets of those 3200 shots that I had thought to run
through HDR 
so they were available to try with the PhotoAcute. 

I should have some time next week to shoot something with the PhotoAcute
multishot 
approach in mind. One thing I noted about the PhotoAcute method was that
color noise was 
extremely reduced without losing any detail at all and that I could further
reduce luminance 
noise in ACR until I was unhappy with the detail loss. I'm not big on 3rd
party software 
having always felt that PS had the technique somewhere inside it but this
looks worth a bit 
of time.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i've used this software and have gotten good results.  results are
what the company claims.  in my experience, i've gotten better results
using only 2, maybe 3 images rather than 4+ images.  the only negative
i have is that there is considerable distortion on the periphery that
you have to correct for in photoshop.  but it does deliver higher than
native resolution, less noise, higher dynamic range, etc.  i'm sure
the software will improve in later versions.

if nothing else, try it out for 30 days to see if it works for you.