Localized noise reduction

I know this has been requested before, but this would be my highest priority in the develop module. I would like to be able to dial up a level of noise reduction, and then paint it out (remove it) in specific parts of the image. Ideally it would work like the sharpen brush, with multiple incremental applications possible.
My question: is this feasible in the current lightroom develop architecture or are we just barking up the wrong tree?

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
areohbee wrote:
Hi Rory,
I assume you already know the de-sharpener (negative sharpening) can act as a local (luminance) noise reducer in the mean time...
PS - I sometimes entertain the fantasy that Adobe is busy working on the develop module to support more (or all) adjustments local (for Lr4) ;-}
Rob
Yep, and yep .

Similar Messages

LR4 Feature request: Add local noise reduction

Hello,
I wish to apply noise reduction localy. On the backgroud apply a lot of and in forgroud (where the object/personn ist) a little.
See this example.
The current local noise reduction ist NOT the same as the one in the detail panel. It is a lof f less efficient.
Thanks

martin-s wrote:
...I had no idea there was a cut-off point...
The only people who know about it are the one's who hang out on this forum .
martin-s wrote:
I use negative sharpness combined with negative clarity and/or contrast for blur effects. It's not unusual that I stack multiple brushes when -100 isn't enough
Thanks for the tip. My problem with blurring in Lr is that the blurred region ends up "too clean" (the rest of the photo has at least a bit of noise in it). I have dealt with it in the past by applying grain to the blurred region using an external editor - but that takes a lot of the fun out of doing the blur in Lightroom.
Rob

Feature request: local noise reduction...

I love the local corrections in LR2, and I'm using especially the local sharpening feature a lot. But I'm really missing a local noise correction feature (at least for luminance noise). It's such a shame to be able to do about any correction that I need inside Lightroom, but still having to make a round trip to an external noise editor to remove local noise. Especially since doing noise reduction as the last step doesn't seem to be very efficient at all.
Local noise reduction would make this already great program so much better (at least, to me).
Richard

>My understanding is that sharpening does not add noise, but emphasizes the noise that's already there, making it appear from being insignificant to noticeable.
We're being overly semantic here of course, but it just depends on how you define it. If you define noise as for example the root-mean square deviation from the "real" image (a very common definition but it ignores the noise's spectral distribution), than absolutely sharpening a noisy image adds more noise. Sharpening operates as a high frequency amplifier, amplifying edges that are just noise instead of real edges, so it basically amplifies the noise that is there, leading to an increase in apparent noisiness. The same is true for clarity. Clarity is basically a sharpening operation at a very high radius. If your source image is noisy (especially if it has a lot of low-frequency noise - i.e. "grain"), it will also amplify it. Conversely, negative sharpening results in reducing high frequency noise. as it is just a small radius blur effectively.
>Moreover, sharpening in LR develop is considered capture sharpening, where the small loss in sharpness form the RAW format is regained.
The sharpening brush is different as it is meant to be a creative sharpener. It definitely amplifies noise if you push it. And even so, using Develop's capture sharpening, it is indeed possible to amplify (=add) the noise using the capture sharpening if you use the controls wrong. The capture sharpening has the superb mask generator that can be used to protect areas that are not edges, limiting its tendency to amplify noisiness. However, it will amplify noise near edges, sometimes making them appear as if you have a waterpainting. This is also an example of amplifying noise. Remember, even if these tools are meant to do a certain thing, it doesn't mean they cannot be made to do something else.
>To just regain lost RAW sharpness at the expense of noise would seem almost like defeating its own purpose.
Sharpness and noise go hand in hand. There are smarter and less smart algorithms but fundamentally, sharpening always amplifies noise, and noise reduction always reduces sharpness. As I said some algorithms are better and limit the effect, but the bottom line is that there really is no way around this.
>Or, is it more correct to say that applying -ve clarity/sharpening will make the noise "Appear" less obvious, but not actually get rid of it.
Appear less obvious is exactly the same as reducing it. Your eye is very good in judging noisyness as it is very good at recognizing patterns and so you can easily see what is noise and what isn't. If an image appears less noisy, it is less noisy. Computers are not that smart yet and if you call a tool clarity, it does not magically know how to not amplify noise or how to not reduce noise when using it negative. Same with sharpening.
Conclusion: negative sharpness & negative clarity == noise reduction. They are just not as good as some dedicated noise reduction algorithms as they are not primarily coded to do noise reduction. They do have that effect however.

Local noise reduction too weak

I often need to add a touch of additional noise reduction to some image areas such as the sky and use to apply the adjustment brush (can't say how much Lightroom lacks a layers feature). In some cases, even increasing the noise lever to 100% will still not give me enough noise reduction. I currently don't know any other way to get what I want than to escape to Photoshop with its masks, layers and filters. I'd prefer to stay in Lightroom for noise reduction, is there something I could try or would the developers need to make the effect of the slider stronger?
Andreas

Andreas: the solution is simple, even if it isn't intuitive. Just click on the "new" button next to the adjustment brush to start a new adjustment in a new location. Now start painting in another location in the sky. (Don't get to close to the original pin you started with your you'll reselect it and continue that adjustment.) Now you can paint 100% noise reduction over the sky a second time for a total of 200%. If that's still not enough, lather, rinse and repeat.
I first learned about this technique from Matt Kloskowski's Lightroom Killer Tips blog. Here's a video he created that shows this technique in action: http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/video-stacking-multiple-adjustment-brush-settings/
Brad

Adjustment brush with exposure setting cancels noise reduction

Hello,
I just noticed the following problem:
1) Camera Raw 6.5; Bridge CS5 (4.0.5.11); Mac OS X 10.6.8; Mac Pro 3,1; Dual Quad-Core Xeon; 8GB RAM.
2) Start with a noisy raw file (mine is from a Canon 5D II).
3) Apply Noise Reduction (Luminance:30; Lum Detail:75; Lum Contrast:0; Color:25; Color Detail:50).
4) Go to Adjustment Brush and set a non-zero Exposure value.
5) Apply brush to image and notice the Noise Reduction effects disappear (noise returns).
6) Click Clear All button to clear Adjustment Brush and Noise Reduction works again.
This seems to only happen with Adjustment Brushes with a non-zero Exposure value (applying brightness or other settings don't seem to produce the problem).
Anyone else seeing this?
Thanks!

Richard (and others),
Yes, very good idea to check that. The problem does indeed get applied to the full sized, opened image as well as to the display previews. After working with this more, I now notice that I was wrong to say that the entire noise reduction is cancelled - rather it "changes", sometimes subtly, sometimes more dramatically depending on what the noise reduction settings are set to. Further, how dramatic the "changes" appear depend greatly on the preview zoom (the changes are more subtle at 100%, but it can look like the noise reduction is completely turned off at 50% and 66%).
Now I realize that the noise reduction does not ordinarily display at all preview sizes (especially smaller ones), but this is different. At preview sizes where it does normally get applied, applying an adjustment brush with any non-zero exposure value (even just +0.05) can have the appearance that the NR is completely turned off for the whole image. Simply nudging the exposure value back to zero brings all the noise reduction back.
Also, to be clearer and avoid confusion for others, the change in noise I'm seeing is not localized to just the brushed spot. Obviously if one increases exposure, you'd expect to potentially see more noise. Instead, what I'm seeing happens to the entire image, even if I simply paint a single small brush dot, say in a far corner. Having the image change globally in response to painting a small spot with the adjustment brush cannot be a correct result. Further, this does not happen with any of the other adjustment brush settings like brightness, contrast or saturation. There must be something unique about the exposure setting that perhaps introduces a new step into the processing pipeline, and this step is affecting the entire image.
In any case, the problem only seems to be an issue in somewhat extreme cases and is less noticeable at 100% (and the finally opened image). It's more just annoying when previews are generated for viewing in Bridge, for example.
I suppose one alternative might be to rob a bank and go buy one of those new 1D X's. Then maybe I wouldn't have to worry about noise anymore.
Thanks for the responses!

PV2010 Color Noise Reduction Robs Dark Tones

No pun intended.
I thought at first it was the raw-conversion/de-mosaicing, but its turned out to be the color noise reduction.
Here is a the latest example of a picture that looks better in PV2003 than PV2010 no matter what I do, because of loss of clarity / contrast / dark-tones resulting from the new Color Noise Reduction algorithm. Note: This loss can not be restored using clarity or contrast sliders.
This probably ought to be a feature request: A slider that controls the coarser aspects of color noise reduction (color waves or clarity/contrast) versus the most localized aspects (color specs). In this instance, just getting rid of the specs without trying to reduce the waves might leave the dark tones(?) - Something like that. In any case, there is room to improve color noise reduction so that it leaves the dark tones / contrast / clarity in certain cases like this.
(Its a 100% crop of a section of a fish under water)
PV2003:
PV2010:
The difference is striking when viewing the whole photo from afar...
PS - I just discovered that minimizing noise reduction will maintain the dark tones better - I've therefore added down-throttling of color noise reduction to my PV2003 -> PV2010 practice.
Rob

dorin_nicolaescu wrote:
Luminosity Contrast slider also helps maintain some darker tones.
Indeed it do.
And, last but maybe (or maybe not) least, one can cheat a bit at the end and add some grain, to give the illusion of greater detail / texture. So, if you really want to preserve full detail when converting high ISO shots from PV2003 to PV2010, you need to:
1. Crank up the luminance noise reduction detail slider pretty darn high (if not all the way up).
2. Crank up the luminance noise reduction contrast slider pretty darn high (if not all the way up).
3. Minimize color noise reduction amount.
4. Crank up the color noise reduction detail slider fairly darn high (not all the way up! - color artefacts - bleh).
5. Maybe add a touch of grain (pretty darn low).
(I've left out the luminance NR amount slider and sharpening because they are the more obvious ones).
I'm guessing I'm not the first person to fall into the trap of trying to recover detail lost by noise reduction by decreasing luminance noise reduction amount and increasing sharpening detail (and maybe amount too), and winding up right back where you started - too much noise. The detail/contrast sliders of the noise reduction controls really work a lot better for that, and minimizing color noise reduction is also a hot tip for you detail junkies.
I hope I'm not the last person on this forum to realize what is now seeming sort of obvious to me, whilst everyone has a good laugh...
(I had previous just left color noise reduction and detail, plus luminance NR contrast at their defaults (I discovered the importance of the lum.NR detail slider long ago...) - but not anymore. It has helped me to articulate all this - hope it helps somebody else too..........
Rob

LR3: lack of processing feedback after applying noise reduction

Now with the bigger RAW files (7D's 18Mpix) Lightroom is becoming really slow.
On several ocassions after applying some noise reduction, and waiting for some 20-30sec for a visible result, I moved the slider back and forth in the wrong assumption that nothing happens, but in fact I was disrupting an ongoing operation. The problem in LR3 is that it does not show any of its tooltips with an information that a noise reducing operation is in progress.
I hope that the team would improve this in the next version 3.01, we need at least the tooltip to appear.
Thomas

i absolutely agree!
Now, in LR3 you can move the sliders very smoothly - but nothing happens for seconds.
Same happens with the local adjustment brush. You click on the picture and start to paint but nothing happens. After a few seconds the pin appears and MAYBE the first click for the mask is set. After that you can paint further.
Another thing is, that it takes longer for a RAW to be loaded. Sometimes i see the "Loading"-Hint for 10 Seconds or more. If i need to scan fast thru hundreds of pictures to clone away some things or make a face a little bit brighter, these loading times feels like ages.
Both is very annoying and was better in LR2.
BTW: I think LR3 has a serious memory leak because i can see LR3 slowing down over time. After developing about 20 pictures everything slows down, sometimes to a point where i think LR3 has frozen (no CPU usages, just standing still for 30 seconds or more). When i quit and restart LR3, everything is quick until the next slow down.
(older iMac 24", white model, 3GB RAM that can be used) - you may see this at a later point if you have 8GB or more RAM of course.

Noise Reduction Mask

There is no masking tool for noise reduction like there is for sharpening (only the other way round, so it masks out sharper transition) either in Lightroom 3 or Lightroom 4. I cannot hazard a guess why not and wonder whether such a thing could be included in the final version?

+1!
The inverse of the Sharpening Mask! Hold down ALT while adjusting the Luminance and Color sliders to view in real time. Would be awesome.
In the interim I've found the following workflow helpful when applying global NR...
1) Get rid of color noise first - easily done, get it out of the way for when you evaluate detail
2) Crank Luminance NR, crank NR Detail, zero out NR Contrast
3) View at 3:1, nice and tight, find a section that has smooth and detailed areas
4) Move the Detail slider back and forth and pay attention to the blur on the fine detail. Too high and you'll get the detail back but noise as well. Too low and will be blurred into obscurity. Look for the best balance
5) Do the same thing with NR Contrast. Up and down and watch for changes. Frankly this control is so subtle I find it insignificant. Probably aren't looking for right things.
6) Settled on those zero out the Luminance NR and start to raise until you are satisfied with the overall noise levels, knowing that your detail will be protected from above. Work your sharpening to compensate for any softening (and use the mask so noise in flatter areas isn't exaggerated).
Now we can add the local NR brush to fine tune further and add or reduce that global application selectively.

Noise reduction, Clarity and Masking Vs Sharpness

Maybe I have been using too much noise reduction and clarity for bird photos. Some people on dpReview recommend no noise reduction and now I am inclined to believe them. Recently I tried using little to no noise reduction, little to no Clarity, lots of sharpening and about 40% masking.This gives the bird good feather detail and anything with less detail has little noise and better bokeh. In low detail areas it looks to me like masking reduces the noise caused by Sharpening but it has less affect on the noise increased by Clarity. Is this true? If it is, in bird photography is Clarity best used sparingly and selectively like on there heads?
Another reason for asking all this is I once read that even a little masking degrades sharpness but now I doubt that. Maybe LR has improved that through the years.
Thanks,
Doug

Indeed luminance noise reduction (and to some extent color noise reduction) has a tendency to wipe out fine feather detail.
I recommend:
* lowered noise reduction, and if you do use it, crank the nr.detail slider way up - this will help maintain fine feather detail and is superior to sharpening detail for maintaining feather detail otherwise lost due to noise reduction.
* lowered sharpening detail, to keep noise down, and reduce the "need" for noise reduction.
* and sharpen masking to taste..
Also note: local sharpening at exactly -50 masks all global sharpening, and so can be used in conjunction with noise reduction to smooth the bokeh areas.
And of course you can add sharpening and/or clarity locally too.
I realize I didn't answer your exact question perfectly as asked, but I'm not sure what else to say, so..
Have fun,
Rob

Nikon D70s + Process 2010 + Luminance Noise Reduction + Adjustment Brush = blurry picture

Please let me know if you have experienced the following and if it is a known bug:
I'm processing a very noisy Nikon D70s raw photograph with Lightroom 3: In the develop mode, I applied the 2010 process under Camera Calibration, and then set the Luminance Noise Reduction to 98 in the detail panel. At this point, the resulting improvement over the original is dramatic and the details are rather crisp given the original condition of the photo.
However, the moment I apply a local adjustment to the photo, bluriness is introduced to the photo; the bluriness affects the entire photo and not only the areas impacted by the local adjustment. This undesired effect appears with the adjustment brush and gradient and the only parameter that the local adjustment applies is an increase in the exposure by 0.01, which should normally not produce much of a visible effect.
I exported the photo to a jpeg and found the undesired effect in the jpeg file.
I believe this issue has a relation with the RAW file coming from a Nikon D70s as I performed a Sync of all the settings on RAW photos originating from a Canon 30D, and from a Canon XSi and did not see any of the undesired effect.
These steps appear to be reproduceable on any of the Nikon D70s RAW photos that I have in my catalog.
Please share some feedback.
Thanks,
Bruno

The NEF and xmp files are now available at http://drop.io/LR3BugAdjBrushNoise8736
In the current development settings, I added an adjustment brush to the ceiling with an exposure adjustment of +0.01 simply to demonstrate the issue. As soon as the adjustment is applied, bluriness can be seen and is most apparent in the faces but can also be seen on the wooden floor and everywhere else.
I also noticed that by setting the mask to show (O), ditthering can be seen in the mask even though it was applied with feather, flow and density all set to 100%.
Let me know what you think.
Bruno

Vocal Irregularity after applying Noise Reduction

In this new project I followed Bob Howes instruction:
‘Set the FFT size (on the advanced menu) to 2048 and grab a noise print from a gap of "silence". Select the entire filed and do reduction by 7 or 8 dB and 15%ish reduction. Set the FFT size to the next one up, get a new noise print and do another pass with the same low settings. Keep going, upping the FFT size each time.’
This new project I started out first with a Hard Limit. Then I followed Bob's advise with managing by steps the FFT size.
Sample One is a piece of the original.
Sample Two is the results of the effects.
It sounds as though the speed of the vocals did changed - though one can listen to the vocal their conversation sounds - unnatural.
After removing noise is there another approach to redeem the vocals of those speaking?
Thanks!
Original Sample One
HardLimit - Noise Reduction Sample Two
Your video has been published at http://youtu.be/K63D5QNGb_I
Your video will be live at: http://youtu.be/uOtLUYiZyQc

Yes, you have very much overdone the Noise Reduction!
First, I'm not sure why you would need to first apply a "Hard Limit".
Second, are you sure you followed Bob's advice exactly, i.e taking a new noise sample and changing the FFT size on each pass? Are you sure you set everything exactly correct on that first pass?

Is there a way to apply noise reduction based on ISO value?

I shoot a lot of sports using auto ISO which means I get hundreds of images from a day with a variety of different ISO values, including all sorts of intermediate values (like ISO 280, for example). There are times when I'd like to apply LR noise reduction across the whole batch of images, but I'd like to apply it based on the ISO value of the image. For example at ISO 1250 and above, I want a particular NR Luminance value. From 640 to 1250, I want a different value. From 400-640, a different value. I know you can define some things at import time based on ISO, but that doesn't seem practical when the ISO value can be nearly anything as it would take hundreds of import profiles.
So, any ideas how to apply NR based on the ISO across a batch of images?

jfriend0 wrote:
How do "defaults" interact with a preset applied upon import? I shoot RAW and apply a preset upon import for every import I do. If I apply a preset upon import will it override the "default" anyway? If that's the case, then defaults are of no use to me.
Yes - Lightroom presets are absolute, but unlike the default settings, presets don't have to specify all the settings. If a preset setting is specified, it will blindly overwrite the previous setting, if not specified then the previous value will remain unaltered.
DevAdjust supports relative presets: final-value = present-value +/- relative-preset-value
Rob

Why does PhotoShop CC 2014 crash my Windows 7 Professional 64-bit PC every time I try to use Sharpen/Blur Reduction and also Noise Reduction ??!!!???

Hi Adobe
You a have a really wonderful PhotoShop CC product. It's really great, and I know new versions such as 2014 have their teething problems.
But I am getting really sick of my Windows 7 Professional 64-bit PC being crashed whenever I try to use PhotoShop CC 2014 Sharpen / Blur Reduction and also Noise Reduction.
This happens both with JPG's and PSD's.
Please sort your **** out and get some patches out to address this quickly !!
Chris Tattersall

Chris,
It doesn't crash for everyone. A person could be forgiven for saying, in return, "Please sort out your **** system problems".
Trust me when I say many, many problems are caused by the computer system setup not being up to the needs of this cutting-edge graphics software. Photoshop is heavily dependent on the GPU, and GPU drivers are notorious for having bugs (they're primarily written to run games).
However, that being said, recent driver releases from both ATI and nVidia do actually work pretty well with Photoshop CC 2014.
What video card do you have?
What display driver version are you running?
If you're unsure how to tell these things, go into Photoshop, choose Help - System Info, copy the data, and post it here.
-Noel

Is Lightroom really better for noise reduction than Adobe Camera Raw?

That's what I keep hearing from Lightroom users (who don't use Photoshop or barely touch it).
Which is better? or are they exactly the same? I'm not referring to a specific version, but I am personally using the latest Cloud versions of everything. I haven't tested it visually, I'm just now getting familiar with Lightroom.

Given the same version number, Lightroom and Camera Raw have the exact same sharpening and noise reduction. The only differences in ACR and LR are usability or UI aspects, the controls and rendering are the same.

Noise reduction works in preview but doesn't apply to file

I have a file that I would like to apply noise reduction to. So in the tasks menu I click Clean Up Audio, then under Noise I click Noise... From there I can play with the Noise settings and get it to clean up nicely. But when I hit OK, it doesn't apply the noise reduction. It seems to be doing something to the audio because the waveform changes.. just not reducing the noise as previewed. Anybody know why it wouldn't be applying the effect? Other audio editing options seem to work just fine.

It is a 16 bit 44.1 kHz mono sound effect.. it is noisy and sounds like it could have been 8 bit at some point in its life cycle.

Localized noise reduction

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for