Hi All,

I noticed that Neat Image gets mentioned a lot. Is it better than
Noise Ninja?

Many thanks,
Dave

Each has its supporters - I don't know of any impartial comparison review of
the two. I started with NEAT because I learned of it first - paid for it,
so I don't feel the need to switch. I tried out Noise Ninja, but very
cursorily - didn't see a difference so I stuck with NEAT.

I believe both have free trial downloads - download both, compare them and
decide.

Maris

vance8005 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

On May 5, 11:43 pm, "Maris V. Lidaka Sr." <nemlid... (AT) ameritech (DOT) net>
wrote:
Thanks. I have Noise Ninja and it seems to work okay, but it refuses
to work on compressed TIF files, which is very annoying. I'll try the
free download from Neat Image.

I don't know that Neat Image works on compressed TIFFs either, but it does
also work as a plug-in for Adobe Photoshop, Corel PhotoPaint, PSP and other
similar software, where opening the compressed image would of course
uncompress it as well.

Maris

vance8005 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

I've tried both and found that Neat Image gives very smooth images but
that it takes work to avoid artifacts. I prefer noise ninja which
gives more moderate results, leaving the basic grain structure intact
and having no strange noise reduction artifacts. I use Noise Ninja on
compressed TIFFs as a plug-in in Photoshop.

Thanks, guys. I purchased the Photoshop plug-in for Noise Ninja for
$10 and, like you say, it works on compressed TIFs that I have open in
Photoshop and also works as an Action when I use Photoshop to batch
process a folder of compressed TIF images. It really improves an
image too, although I have use a powerful setting on the grainy scans
I'm getting from old Kodachrome slides. I'm a happy camper.