Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-05-2014, 09:01 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 835
DxO doesn't support the K3's DNG files? That's interesting, I guess it's giving me some sort of generic corrections or something since it shows me the DNG files. Now to shoot a PEF shot and check it against a DNG in DxO, to see the differences.

I haven't really had an issue with Topaz Lab's DeNoise and the K3, though I've had to change some of the settings compared to what I was used to with the K5. I've stopped using LR4's default settings for sharpening, then perhaps add some noise reduction, but I'm more cautious about it. I'm also thinking about upgrading my computer and changing to LR5, but I just can't get enthusiastic about it. I'd rather stick with what I have for as long as I can.

01-05-2014, 09:11 PM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Albany OR
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 143
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
Why do you think this about Lightroom after version 5.3 was released? It seems to manage noise on my K-3 ISO 12,800 files quite well. K-3 files bring less of a challenge than 7D files do at the same ISO and LR handles both just fine in most circumstances.

M
I have been using Lightroom 4.3 version for my K5lls and now with the K3.
Does anyone have experience/comparisons for using LR 5.3 as better than the 4.3 version using NR. (maybe I need to upgrade)
I am not getting as good results as I would like.
My technique is in need of improvement also however.

gary
01-05-2014, 09:20 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,726
QuoteOriginally posted by gatorpops Quote
I am not getting as good results as I would like.
Being more specific here would help others help you. Talk about your sharpening and NR practices.

Version 5.3 of LR provides K-3-specific camera profiles. I purchased the Huelight profiles as well and like using them, but I believe the requirement is LR 5.x. I don't think sharpening nor NR technology has changed from version 4.

QuoteOriginally posted by gatorpops Quote
My technique is in need of improvement also however.
Usually boils down to this for all of us!

M
01-05-2014, 10:22 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by mtngal Quote
DxO doesn't support the K3's DNG files? That's interesting, I guess it's giving me some sort of generic corrections or something since it shows me the DNG files...

Hmmmm...


I just rechecked my file library and my trial version of DxO Pro 9 (9.1.1 build 1563 (64-bit)) reads PEF, TIFF, JPG formats, but not DNG. I could be wrong, but DxO does not seem to have a camera profile for the Pentax Q (Q only records in DNG, or JPG), or its lenses. It will read my Q's DNG files that have been saved to the TIFF format.


Cheers... M

01-06-2014, 07:20 AM   #20
Veteran Member
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,287
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
IThis program seems to be a real resource hog and tends to slow everything down even when not engaged by DXO. In addition, DXO requires custom camera + lens profiles to be installed for things to work well. Fortunately, there's a profile for the K-3 and K-5 IIs, plus the lenses I tend to use. If your images are produced by lenses that are not profiled, it's possible you might not get the results you desire. Others have observed that DXO does some tasks very well, but other tasks might be better executed on an exported partially completed image in LR or Photoshop. This may add complexity to the work-flow, but since I have not gone there, I can't comment, yet.
agree on it being a resource hog (i.e. you better have a damn good computer) and basically if you want to get the best out of it, it is recommended that you also have the lenses that are supported. That being said, I have done extensive tests using various RAW converters, and especially when it comes to shadow detail and/or high ISO, I always find DxO does a better job with conversion. There is some grumbling that DxO doesn't handle extreme blown out highlights as well as other apps, but in general, I underexpose and rarely have extreme blown out highlights, so this is less of a concern for me. Others may have a different opinion here.

As for workflow, if you are coming from Lightroom and you are expecting DxO to be a replacement for LR then you will be disappointed. DxO does RAW conversions only, that is its specialty. It really is not a digital asset management tool. I only use DxO for selective RAW conversion (i.e. I don't "convert" all my 1000 RAW files in a batch. I only convert what I need then do final tweaks in Photoshop. I'm leaning more and more to use a dedicated digital asset management tool like Photools instead of Lightroom which tries to be all things to all people.

There is no denying that many people just don't get DxO. My only suggestion is to try it and pay close attention to how well it handles shadows and high ISO -- especially compelling is the use of the PRIME option on ISO 6400 images. IMHO, there is nothing better on the market. (warning: PRIME processing will take at least twice as long per photo as "normal" processing)

Have fun!
Michael
01-06-2014, 09:42 AM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
As for workflow, if you are coming from Lightroom and you are expecting DxO to be a replacement for LR then you will be disappointed. DxO does RAW conversions only, that is its specialty....

Thanks for the nice summary.


My DxO adventure started as a result of some common sense observations made by you in earlier posts. I must confess that I'm quite comfortable and pleased with the results from my LR5.3+NIK plug-in workflow, but I'm always game for exploring new ways to approach things that test my normal way of thinking with the K-3. I do not expect to become a DxO wizard in 30 days. Time and a little effort to make things work are needed before I can decide on including it in my pp quiver.


Cheers... M
01-07-2014, 02:29 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 543
DxO's PRIME noise reduction is so far the best I have experienced, when it comes to processing images shot in very dark conditions. Of course as any other noise reduction it makes images softer-looking, but considering the high level of detail in K-3 shots even at high ISO settings, it is not much of a concern, especially if you downsize the output image. 24 mp sensor produces images big enough for these purposes.
01-07-2014, 04:11 PM   #23
Veteran Member
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,287
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
My DxO adventure started as a result of some common sense observations made by you in earlier posts. I must confess that I'm quite comfortable and pleased with the results from my LR5.3+NIK plug-in workflow, but I'm always game for exploring new ways to approach things that test my normal way of thinking with the K-3. I do not expect to become a DxO wizard in 30 days. Time and a little effort to make things work are needed before I can decide on including it in my pp quiver.
Here is a link to the DxO forum thread where we discuss DxO vs. the competition -- scroll down to the 2nd page where I show side+-by-side comparison of DxO vs. PhotoNinja:

Better recovery of blown highlights

In particular, I found Noise Ninja de-noising of deep shadow noise to be nearly useless compared to PRIME. I did however find PhotoNinja's extreme highlight recovery to be somewhat compelling. The hope is that now that DxO has mastered high ISO/deep shadow recovery they can improve their extreme highlight recovery to get closer to PhotoNinja's

Michael

01-07-2014, 08:00 PM   #24
BWG
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Monterey County, California
Posts: 45
Original Poster
Thanks to everyone for responding. I posted the question and then got tied up for most of the weekend and didn't get a chance to respond. I'll put up some examples on Thursday, and try a few of your suggestions.
01-07-2014, 09:33 PM   #25
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,025
QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
Here is a link to the DxO forum thread where we discuss DxO vs. the competition -- scroll down to the 2nd page where I show side+-by-side comparison of DxO vs. PhotoNinja:

Better recovery of blown highlights

In particular, I found Noise Ninja de-noising of deep shadow noise to be nearly useless compared to PRIME. I did however find PhotoNinja's extreme highlight recovery to be somewhat compelling. The hope is that now that DxO has mastered high ISO/deep shadow recovery they can improve their extreme highlight recovery to get closer to PhotoNinja's

Michael
Michael, when I follow your link, I see your posts on that site but not your images. Am I missing something?
01-07-2014, 10:22 PM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
Michael, when I follow your link, I see your posts on that site but not your images. Am I missing something?
I'm in the same boat; that is, the image examples do not appear.

Anyway, I've decided to end my current DxO adventure. After doing some side-by-sides with DxO Pro 9 vs. LR5.3+NIK plug-ins, I found with a little extra effort and fine tuning of NIK's Define, I can achieve almost indistinguishable results up to ISO 25600. The real deal breaker for me is the need to carry the computing overhead of Windows Net Framework 4.5 with every other (non-DxO) program I use. It really slows down my otherwise nimble Win 7-64 bit desktop and I'm NOT inclined to reconfigure my hardware to bring things back up to pre-DxO speed.

Finally, I get the impression that DxO is still a work in progress (nothing wrong with that) and I'll gladly watch how it develops. I remain open to giving it another chance as it evolves.

Again, Michael (MSJfoto1956), thank you for introducing me to DxO. You are a good advocate and I'm glad you are finding it useful.

Best wishes & Cheers... M

Last edited by Michaelina2; 01-08-2014 at 03:42 PM. Reason: typo
01-07-2014, 10:38 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
I also find that the K-3 requires a greater level of shooting and technique discipline including higher shutter speeds to offset slight camera movement that can blur the image.

M
I find the same thing.....the camera is less forgiving, especially when using MF glass. I am still trying to figure out why. Great shots when I am paying attention though!

I am wondering if the result of denoise has more to do with blur than noise?
01-08-2014, 01:20 PM   #28
Veteran Member
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,287
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
Michael, when I follow your link, I see your posts on that site but not your images. Am I missing something?
not sure, but perhaps you need to be logged in to see images?

(I see them just fine)

M
01-08-2014, 01:28 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,726
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveM Quote
I am still trying to figure out why.
Ming Thein's essay has some very interesting ideas 'bout this. Not sure it is totally true, but not totally nonsense either. Good read.

M
01-08-2014, 03:07 PM   #30
jac
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada
Posts: 2,363
I'm a NIK Suite/Aperture user and am quite satisfied with NIK Dfine's performance. As Michaelina2 points out, you ca apply the effects globally or locally. You can even apply globally but isolate one critical spot the you don't want affected. As an aside, I find this helpful in Using Sharpener Pro from the same collection, one step sharpening through a Control Point that doesn't affect globally and, for instance, mess up a nice smooth bokeh.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
denoise, dslr, k-3, k3, lightroom, noise reduction, pentax k-3, topaz
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Mic Do You Use For Your Audio? reivax Video and Pentax HDSLRs 3 03-30-2013 04:40 PM
What are your most used lens and what do you use them for? What lens do you have that pearsaab Pentax K-5 44 06-04-2012 09:23 AM
What class of SD do you use with your Q? Clicker Pentax Q 2 02-05-2012 08:42 PM
Which Noise Reduction programs do you use and why? aaronius Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 25 11-12-2010 08:23 AM
What do you guys use for high iso noise reduction? rustynail925 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 38 12-04-2009 01:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:37 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top