Option B is a much larger file than even the original so it's hard to
tell. B is better because of less jpeg compression. A is smoother but
jpeg compression does that too.

I vote for B.

I'd say "A" has too much noise reduction, contours get too much smoothed
out.
"B" is the better.
Isn't it possible to tweak the noise reduction action in all of these
programs?
/per

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:30:56 -0800, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Slack™
<"Slack\"@½³.org"> wrote:

While you may consider a blind comparison of photos the best way to go
about evaluating the programs, without saying what exactly was done with
each it's impossible to make a fair judgement. All the programs and built
in routines have so many user settings it's quite easy to get differing
results.

Those pictures are crap! Certainly not anything you'd bother removing
noise from. Get your exposures right before you worry about noise.
Correct exposure will in itself, reduce noise.

Slack™ wrote:

I like the original the best. The other two have had almost all texture
removed from them along with the noise.

For what it is worth, I use both Noise Ninja and Neat Image. I like
Neat Image because it seems to do a better job at removing noise, but
it only works on pictures that have a reasonably sized area of a single
color, such as sky. Busy pictures confuse Neat Image. Noise Ninja
allows you to use specific profiles matching camera, ISO, and exposure
time. It can be much more precise than Neat Image, and it works on any
photo.

I have also used several other products, but none of them come close to
these two.

It is common for people who are learning to use noise reduction
programs to overdo it. The only way you can determine which one is
right for you is to experiment -- a lot -- and decide what results you
like the best.

As you have noted, the picture is grossly underexposed and is
red-shifted, a common problem with digital photography. You get green
shifts with over-exposure. Whatever. You are also standing too high
above the duck; you want to get down on the duck's level if you can.
Shoot him straight in the eye. And then crop, just leaving some water
for him to swim into. And don't ever let anyone see a picture like that
again. If the light does not work, it does not work. No picture.

B looks smoother.

Print a crop from both and let that decide which is better.  It could be
that printed that the difference is not even noticeable.

If you're going to compare pre- and post- noise reduction it would be
better to do it on a photo with a full range of color and -3 to +2 zones
included in those zones.