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

Similar Messages

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.

Feature Request: Add Skype option to user name field in contacts

Feature Request: Add Skype option to user name field in contacts
I know skype maintains it's own names but this is so you don't lose everrything when you move from one place to another. Or need to skype someone from an internet cafe with your iphone.

Why not simply add the field by modifying the template?

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 .

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

Feature request: Add "Cancel" button to the close program / backup actions pop up window

Please add a way to cancel out of an unintended close of LR4. I cannot count how many times I have thought of something else I needed to do or wanted to try, only to have to totally restart the program to complete the action. If I prematurely exit the program I would like a way to get back in without having to totally close out and restart. LR3 suffers from the identical coding/programming oversight. Thanks.

Ok, so I did not see this feature request for LR4 but was able to find a few references for it under LR3 (which I apparently missed before posting this request). Is this simple request really that difficult a programming feat?

Feature Request: More Local Adjustments

Sometimes it's nessesary to correct hue/saturation locally — change face colour or something like that. And it would be good to have such brush. Together with ability to change Fill Light, Black and Vibrance in a part of image. Why the current selection of brushes is so narrow?

alex krylov wrote:
Sometimes it's nessesary to correct hue/saturation locally — change face colour or something like that. And it would be good to have such brush. Together with ability to change Fill Light, Black and Vibrance in a part of image.
+1 vote.
Although, its amazing what can be done with the current complement with some practice. For example, opposing color can be added to remove color casts... I often paint with brightness and contrast all the way down and exposure way up to bring detail out of shadows...
alex krylov wrote:
Why the current selection of brushes is so narrow?
My theory is that it is due to the limitation of the present design - limiting the brushes keeps it fast. People with inside knowlege don't much respond on the forum to these types of questions, so us outsiders may never know for sure... But if you think about how painted sharpening is implemented, its just a series of offsets that are applied to the global sharpen settings, so Lightroom doesn't have to do a bunch of different sharpening - just one pass, applying the net amount in each area.
Summary: I think the present complement of local adjustments has been carefully chosen to keep the develop module efficient in accordance with the present design, and to expand the local adjustments a great deal will require some redesigning. I hope I'm wrong and that it will be easier than I would imagine to add local white-balance & fill... If I'm right, I hope Adobe redesigns the develop module for Lr4 in order to expand the local adjustments.
Finally: My present thinking for Lightroom is that this will be too much for Lightroom 4, and that we are more likely to see incremental changes to the Develop module (maybe improved distraction removal) combined with new features like soft-proofing and photobooks... That said, I have switched my desire for Lightroom, to have better integration with external editors, so one can take it as far as possible in Lightroom, but be better able to integrate outside work done on selected photos.
Rob

Feature Request: Add multiple photos to catalog at once

The API currently allows you to use catalog:addPhoto() to add a single photo to the catalog.
This works fine, but a poor user experience when adding a number of photos (esp. dozens or hundreds) - there's a separate child progress bar for each, masking the overall progress, and if the user has a sound enabled on import, it plays the sound on each photo import. If there were a way to import multiple photos at once (or API options/params to disable both of the feedbacks), this would make for a better UX when importing a lot of pictures.

Sorry. I'm having a hard time finding my way around these forums, and the search is less than helpful.
Please point me in the right direction.
Edit: I found the correct forum now, and have recreated my feature requests there and deleted them from this forum (with the exception of this thread, which I can't delete at this point). My apologies.

Premiere Pro CC Feature Request: add multiple Markers at defined times

I'm about to post a feature request and wanted to check to see if anyone else was interested, as I've read that forum support can help to get feature requests added - and also just in case this feature already exists, and I've missed it in my Googling...!
Here's the request:
Brief title for your desired feature:
Option to add multiple Markers to a timeline at defined times
How would you like the feature to work?
It would be great to have an option in the Markers drop-down menu or to be able to right-click on the Marker icon in the timeline and be able to choose "Add Multiple Markers at xxx minutes/seconds/frames".
Why is this feature important to you?
I often end up creating a lot of montages, and it would be great to be able to use this feature to drop a Marker (for example) every three seconds in my timeline so that I can then add a bundle of clips using Automate to Sequence. At the moment, I do this by clicking on the Playhead Position hot text and typing in 00:03, 00:06, 00:09, etc, and dropping a Marker at each point, and this feature would speed things up a bit. I've also been asked by students if this feature is available as well.
If anyone else would be interested in this request, please let me know...!
Thanks

Yes, that's true, when using my method described above, Prem adds each clip from the first frame and cuts it off when it reaches the next Marker, then I use the Slip tool to get them to the bit I like. I'd just like to remove the step of typing the time into the Playhead Position counter by dropping Markers at set intervals or by choosing to use the first xx seconds in the Automate to Sequence dialogue. Either way, the request is in now, but it doesn't look like it'll gain a lot of traction...!
Cheers for the responses, Jim.

LR4 Feature Request regarding Mouseover on Keyword tag

Suggestion: Mouseover on the Keyword tag should identify the keywords - Rather than saying "This photo has keywords", why not display the keywords, something like: Keywords: Family, Memorial Day, 2010

Like it. (The Photoshop Elements Organizer does that.)
You might consider posting this as a feature request in the Feedback forum:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_family_photoshop_lightro om
so it doesn't get lost if it doesn't make it into LR 4.

Feature Request: Add Catalog ID to Catalog Object

To support plugins that need to know which catalog they're working on...
Actually, if catalog:getPropertyForPlugin was working, one could roll their own ID, but it would still not be visible to sibling plugins...
Thanks,
Rob

Sorry. I'm having a hard time finding my way around these forums, and the search is less than helpful.
Please point me in the right direction.
Edit: I found the correct forum now, and have recreated my feature requests there and deleted them from this forum (with the exception of this thread, which I can't delete at this point). My apologies.

Feature request / Add blank pages

Hey!
I'm using the Adobe Reader for Android on my Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition since about one year and i'm very satisfied with it!
But there is thing i'm missing meantime!
I would like to add blank pages to a pdf document!
Is there a way to add a feature like this in one of the next versions?
Thanks for answer!

We have noted down your request and would forward the same to the Product Management. However, we cannot commit if this would be available in the immediate future.
Thanks,
Adobe Reader Team

Feature request: Add a whitelist to the NoExtract functionality

In pacman.conf it would be useful to add a NoExtractWhitelist= or NoExtractException= directive.
NoExtract = usr/share/locale/*
NoExtractException = usr/share/locale/en_US/*
The use case I have in mind for this is the /usr/share/locale/ directory.
On my laptop I have no problem with this directory, but I install arch to usb keys and optical media frequently and
it would be good to be able to blacklist the the 100MB+ and ~2500 files that I don't use w/o having to add every locale
other than my own to the NoExtract line.
Last edited by techryda (2012-10-01 13:05:34)

The optical media isn't really my concern, shouldn't have mentioned it. I mainly care about wear and copy speed on my flash drives
Just filed FS#31749
Last edited by techryda (2012-10-01 13:51:06)

Feature request: Add sequences to "Drop Section" when Generating DDL

Hi Data Modeler Team,
could you add a feature so that it is possible to generate the "DROP SEQUENCE " statements when in "File"->"Export"->"DDL File"?
Right now my workaround is to add a table script under "Table properties"->"Scripts"->"Before create"
Thank you,
Blama
(Win7, Version 3.0.0.665)

Hi,
it would be great if you included drop scripts for the generated triggers as well.
Thanks in advance.

Feature Request: Add option to not have artboard name saved with file name

Please give us an option to turn off the artboard name being appended to the filename. I work in an environment where I have to do a lot of versions and very specific filenames that are given to authors. I like using artboards, but currently, the artboard name is appended to the exported file name and I have to change the file name each time to make it useable to me. I would greatly appreciate the option to turn this off. It creates a lot of unncessary work for me.
Thank you

Why not simply add the field by modifying the template?

LR4 Feature request: Add local noise reduction

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for