First shots with the K3 and not quite sure about the IQ -- comments?

**jpzk** · 02-20-2016, 01:48 PM

Hi folks!

I've just "tested" the K3 a bit today with the DA*300/4 which the lens I have been using for years with the K5.
I am showing two images: one at 32% and the other at 100% .... should I expect a bit less noise at ISO 500 or is this really noise I am seeing at 100% cropping?? Is this sharp? The only thing I did in terms of PP is a very low increase in brightness.
Please take a look at let me know what you think, in terms of IQ.
Note that it was a rather "grey" day, if that makes a difference. I thought this could have been a lot better.

**jatrax** · 02-20-2016, 01:58 PM

More noise is definitely visible in k-3 images. This was widely discussed when the k-3 came out. I was at first very underwhelmed with the k-3 images because I was processing them with the same preset as I used on the k-5. Took a while to realize that I needed to develop for the sensor, not just blindly use my preset. So I dumped the k-5 preset and started over. End result is there is a noticeable improvement in my images k-3 over k-5 but only if I develop them for that camera.

One change I made was to add +10 noise reduction in Lightroom to all k-3 images. The noise is there and looks worse than k-5 but it also cleans up very quickly, just nudge the NR setting a bit and you will be surprised how it blends.

That image does look a little soft, but also a very gray day so..............

Unregistered User · 02-20-2016, 02:00 PM

Do you shoot in RAW? Increasing the brightness is the same as raising the ISO. Hard to tell...

...and I had the same experience as jatrax.

**jbinpg** · 02-20-2016, 02:01 PM

Looks like my SOOC K-3 shots, JP. The K-3 images are highly malleable, though. So whether you do it in-camera with JPG or in post with RAW, you can make these much sharper and less dull from gray day conditions by working with them. Oh, and the K-3's supposed huge grain disappears easily in post, also.

aleonx3 · 02-20-2016, 02:06 PM

JP, I think that is what I expect it (quite good) although I don't have the DA*300/f4 lens. Are you taking RAW or JPG from the camera? The grainy look of the background is expected, and it will clean up nicely if you apply noise reduction during RAW development not in JPG.

**jpzk** · 02-20-2016, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

More noise is definitely visible in k-3 images. This was widely discussed when the k-3 came out. I was at first very underwhelmed with the k-3 images because I was processing them with the same preset as I used on the k-5. Took a while to realize that I needed to develop for the sensor, not just blindly use my preset. So I dumped the k-5 preset and started over. End result is there is a noticeable improvement in my images k-3 over k-5 but only if I develop them for that camera.

One change I made was to add +10 noise reduction in Lightroom to all k-3 images. The noise is there and looks worse than k-5 but it also cleans up very quickly, just nudge the NR setting a bit and you will be surprised how it blends.

That image does look a little soft, but also a very gray day so..............

Thanks for the reply.
I am not sure whether there are "presets" applied when I open the image(s) in CS5 ...
I don't have Lightroom but I do have Topaz Denoise in the "filters" in CS5. That plug-in seems to work OK but I am having difficulty to adjust the NR.
I don't understand what you say about "develop for the sensor".

It does look soft indeed, but I did some more tests with the same gear inside with a calendar for target .... very sharp!

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:17 PM ----------

Originally posted by Tjompen1968

Do you shoot in RAW? Increasing the brightness is the same as raising the ISO. Hard to tell...

...and I had the same experience as jatrax.

Yes, I always shoot RAW (DNG).

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:20 PM ----------

Originally posted by jbinpg

Looks like my SOOC K-3 shots, JP. The K-3 images are highly malleable, though. So whether you do it in-camera with JPG or in post with RAW, you can make these much sharper and less dull from gray day conditions by working with them. Oh, and the K-3's supposed huge grain disappears easily in post, also.

I am going to try to make them look better but it seems to need much more "work" in PP vs. files from my K5.
Honestly, I am disappointed with these images of today.

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:21 PM ----------

Originally posted by aleonx3

JP, I think that is what I expect it (quite good) although I don't have the DA*300/f4 lens. Are you taking RAW or JPG from the camera? The grainy look of the background is expected, and it will clean up nicely if you apply noise reduction during RAW development not in JPG.

All RAW (DNG), then opened in Photoshop CS5 via Camera Raw.
I was thinking of using the Pentax/Ricoh PDCU 5 provided with the K3 .... which I installed on my PC, and wonder if that would help any?

derekkite · 02-20-2016, 02:28 PM

You are a tad front focussed. Otherwise it looks pretty normal.

Start from scratch with your denoise process. What works with the k5 doesn't with the k3.

**jpzk** · 02-20-2016, 02:29 PM

These are the data ....

EXIF data:
f5.0
1/1600 s
ISO-500
Exp. bias 0
focal length 300 mm
Metering: spot
Contrast: hard (K3 original settings)
Sharpness: hard (K3 original settings)
WB: Auto

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:32 PM ----------

Originally posted by derekkite

You are a tad front focussed. Otherwise it looks pretty normal.

Start from scratch with your denoise process. What works with the k5 doesn't with the k3.

OK, I'll check for the front focus ... I will come back and show some of the shots I took inside which look "ok" though.
Denoise: I have done a bit minutes ago ... started with the minimal amount of noise reduction which did not make much difference and as soon as I increase it a tad, it shows too much "softening" (or "lissage").
BTW, I have, or supposed to have, all of the NR "OFF" in camera.

derekkite · 02-20-2016, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

These are the data ....

EXIF data:
f5.0
1/1600 s
ISO-500
Exp. bias 0
focal length 300 mm
Metering: spot
Contrast: hard (K3 original settings)
Sharpness: hard (K3 original settings)
WB: Auto

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:32 PM ----------

OK, I'll check for the front focus ... I will come back and show some of the shots I took inside which look "ok" though.
Denoise: I have done a bit minutes ago ... started with the minimal amount of noise reduction which did not make much difference and as soon as I increase it a tad, it shows too much "softening" (or "lissage").
BTW, I have, or supposed to have, all of the NR "OFF" in camera.

Are you shooting raw?

1600 f5 500iso is a bright day here. I tend to under expose slightly. Look at the branches to the left. They are slightly closer and sharper.

What I have found is the falloff is dramatic. Slightly out of focus like that on the k5 wouldn't show up with the aa filter and lower resolution. Same with noise. Part of mastering the K3 is finding the sweet spots.

aleonx3 · 02-20-2016, 02:51 PM

TBH, I was using LR and Topaz denoize before and face similar problems with de-noise RAW files. After I use SIlkypix 6, which remove noise automatically base on the camera setting, I have not had any problems with any of my photos even though sometimes when it is grossly underexposed. Now, I use LR only for final touches of JPG files, watermarks and catalogue capability only.

**jpzk** · 02-20-2016, 02:53 PM

OK' here are a few taken inside at ISO 1000, 1600, 2000
Same lens (yeah ! even inside!)
No scientific testing of course. The calendar used is curved on top and bottom, so of course that will show as OOF at the borders.
Under tungsten light but no camera setting done for that sort of lighting.
No flash, camera on a bench (no tripod) no remote, no delay.
Distance was about 12 feet.

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:58 PM ----------

Originally posted by derekkite

Are you shooting raw?

1600 f5 500iso is a bright day here. I tend to under expose slightly. Look at the branches to the left. They are slightly closer and sharper.

What I have found is the falloff is dramatic. Slightly out of focus like that on the k5 wouldn't show up with the aa filter and lower resolution. Same with noise. Part of mastering the K3 is finding the sweet spots.

Yep ! RAW (DNG).
I'll just have to start with the slight front focus ... not too great using those charts .... better idea?
What is the "falloff" ?

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 05:16 PM ----------

@ Penumbra:
Yes, the first one is cropped a bit (was showing at around 16% originally and I cropped it to 32%)

**NZ_Ross** · 02-20-2016, 03:16 PM - **1 Like**

For what it is worth, I had exactly the same reaction when I moved from the K-5 to the K-3. Something along the lines of 'what have I done, have I got this badly wrong'

I had put 30,000 images through the K-5 and had got very familiar with the settings that made the camera images pop.

The K-3 output by comparison looked dull and washed out (landscapes and cityscapes for me mainly), and initially I wasn't happy - but I was shooting RAW and PP as I had for the K-5. Different sensor and different output. After about 3 months I got used to what the K-3 produced, and how to shoot for that - if that makes any sense. I also adjusted my PP a little.

I would have to say that I have been very happy with the K-3 output - there is a more detail to be had (no AA filter helps there too), and subtle colour available.

Another observation - a 24MP sensor requires more shot discipline than a 16MP sensor - because you have much more detail, you notice the stuff that isn't right in the image a lot more quickly than with the K-5 sensor. I think that was part of it with me moving up from the K-5 to the K-3 - little things I got away with on the K-5 I got 'punished' with on the K-3 and wasn't happy. I have learnt, and now can consistently get the output I want from the K-3, but it was a challenge initially.

It is similar to the conversations I have had with people using the Zeiss ZK 35/2 lens. It is a lens that if you get everything right just knocks you over with how good the images are. Get it a tiny bit out of focus and the images look terrible. People who have just purchased this lens sometimes ask questions - is their's a bad sample, is the lens really this low quality. When advised to use the lens in a couple of ways, and they get the 'famous' results - they realise it was them, not the lens.

All I can advise is stick with the K-3, learn how to use it and get the best out of the sensor, and you will be very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the results.

Ross

**jpzk** · 02-20-2016, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by aleonx3

TBH, I was using LR and Topaz denoize before and face similar problems with de-noise RAW files. After I use SIlkypix 6, which remove noise automatically base on the camera setting, I have not had any problems with any of my photos even though sometimes when it is grossly underexposed. Now, I use LR only for final touches of JPG files, watermarks and catalogue capability only.

I have set the K3 with absolutely no NR at all ... I'll have to deal with that in PP and hopefully Denoise or an older (free) version of Noiseware Pro will do the trick.
I also do not have Lightroom: just CS5 (with the Topaz Denoise plug-in) and PDCU 5 .
As for Silkypix .... I just don't want to have to dish out more $$ at the moment. Seems to be quite costly.

aleonx3 · 02-20-2016, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

I have set the K3 with absolutely no NR at all ... I'll have to deal with that in PP and hopefully Denoise or an older (free) version of Noiseware Pro will do the trick.
I also do not have Lightroom: just CS5 (with the Topaz Denoise plug-in) and PDCU 5 .
As for Silkypix .... I just don't want to have to dish out more $$ at the moment. Seems to be quite costly.

I faced the same dilemma before, and because I have so many photos (thousands) to process each time after a gig, I had thought about that before. I didn't like the previous versions of Silkypix (prior to 6). I just use the standard version which surprisingly is cheaper (currently on special price) than Photoshop elements and LR. I am a very happy user of Silkypix now, of course, YMMV.

**jatrax** · 02-20-2016, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

I am not sure whether there are "presets" applied when I open the image(s) in CS5 ... I don't have Lightroom but I do have Topaz Denoise in the "filters" in CS5. That plug-in seems to work OK but I am having difficulty to adjust the NR. I don't understand what you say about "develop for the sensor".

I don't know if CS5 applies anything by default on import so I cannot help there. Lightroom is 'script' driven so on import it will apply automatically a set of adjustments if you want, which I do.

What I mean by develop for the sensor is simply forget everything you learned or did with your k-5 images. The K-3 is different, the sensor does not produce the same image as the k-5. If you develop a k-3 image the same as a k-5 image you will be disappointed. I am definitely not the only one to notice that. There were a lot of complaints initially as people used k-5 develop settings on k-3 images with poor results. Several initial reviews were very negative, I suspect because of this reason.

So, basically forget everything you know about developing an image and start over. K-3 sensor is different. My reaction, at first, was the same as NZ_Ross "what have I done". Seriously considered sending the k-3 back! But glad I did not, the image quality is there you just have to learn how the sensor reacts. Think of it as learning to develop a different brand of film. Things are mostly the same, but not completely and that gets you in trouble.

02-20-2016, 01:48 PM	#1
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	First shots with the K3 and not quite sure about the IQ -- comments? Hi folks! I've just "tested" the K3 a bit today with the DA*300/4 which the lens I have been using for years with the K5. I am showing two images: one at 32% and the other at 100% .... should I expect a bit less noise at ISO 500 or is this really noise I am seeing at 100% cropping?? Is this sharp? The only thing I did in terms of PP is a very low increase in brightness. Please take a look at let me know what you think, in terms of IQ. Note that it was a rather "grey" day, if that makes a difference. I thought this could have been a lot better.

02-20-2016, 02:53 PM	#11
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	OK' here are a few taken inside at ISO 1000, 1600, 2000 Same lens (yeah ! even inside!) No scientific testing of course. The calendar used is curved on top and bottom, so of course that will show as OOF at the borders. Under tungsten light but no camera setting done for that sort of lighting. No flash, camera on a bench (no tripod) no remote, no delay. Distance was about 12 feet. ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:58 PM ---------- Originally posted by derekkite Are you shooting raw? 1600 f5 500iso is a bright day here. I tend to under expose slightly. Look at the branches to the left. They are slightly closer and sharper. What I have found is the falloff is dramatic. Slightly out of focus like that on the k5 wouldn't show up with the aa filter and lower resolution. Same with noise. Part of mastering the K3 is finding the sweet spots. Yep ! RAW (DNG). I'll just have to start with the slight front focus ... not too great using those charts .... better idea? What is the "falloff" ? ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 05:16 PM ---------- @ Penumbra: Yes, the first one is cropped a bit (was showing at around 16% originally and I cropped it to 32%) Last edited by jpzk; 02-20-2016 at 02:59 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Not sure about the Sirui T-025X	maxxxx	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	11	12-24-2014 06:22 PM
Want to buy a K-x...but not sure about the lenses	Pretender	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	21	11-05-2009 07:34 AM
New K20D - (not quite) The First Picture	Sailor	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	12-26-2008 09:55 PM
Not sure about the k10d k20d AF? Check this out	reknelb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	06-05-2008 12:33 PM
Surprisingly, the high ISO IQ of the K20D seems to be quite good!	RiceHigh	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	01-26-2008 02:44 PM

02-20-2016, 01:58 PM	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	More noise is definitely visible in k-3 images. This was widely discussed when the k-3 came out. I was at first very underwhelmed with the k-3 images because I was processing them with the same preset as I used on the k-5. Took a while to realize that I needed to develop for the sensor, not just blindly use my preset. So I dumped the k-5 preset and started over. End result is there is a noticeable improvement in my images k-3 over k-5 but only if I develop them for that camera. One change I made was to add +10 noise reduction in Lightroom to all k-3 images. The noise is there and looks worse than k-5 but it also cleans up very quickly, just nudge the NR setting a bit and you will be surprised how it blends. That image does look a little soft, but also a very gray day so..............

02-20-2016, 02:00 PM	#3
Unregistered User Guest	Do you shoot in RAW? Increasing the brightness is the same as raising the ISO. Hard to tell... ...and I had the same experience as jatrax.

02-20-2016, 02:01 PM	#4
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	Looks like my SOOC K-3 shots, JP. The K-3 images are highly malleable, though. So whether you do it in-camera with JPG or in post with RAW, you can make these much sharper and less dull from gray day conditions by working with them. Oh, and the K-3's supposed huge grain disappears easily in post, also.

02-20-2016, 02:06 PM	#5
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	JP, I think that is what I expect it (quite good) although I don't have the DA*300/f4 lens. Are you taking RAW or JPG from the camera? The grainy look of the background is expected, and it will clean up nicely if you apply noise reduction during RAW development not in JPG.

02-20-2016, 02:15 PM	#6
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax More noise is definitely visible in k-3 images. This was widely discussed when the k-3 came out. I was at first very underwhelmed with the k-3 images because I was processing them with the same preset as I used on the k-5. Took a while to realize that I needed to develop for the sensor, not just blindly use my preset. So I dumped the k-5 preset and started over. End result is there is a noticeable improvement in my images k-3 over k-5 but only if I develop them for that camera. One change I made was to add +10 noise reduction in Lightroom to all k-3 images. The noise is there and looks worse than k-5 but it also cleans up very quickly, just nudge the NR setting a bit and you will be surprised how it blends. That image does look a little soft, but also a very gray day so.............. Thanks for the reply. I am not sure whether there are "presets" applied when I open the image(s) in CS5 ... I don't have Lightroom but I do have Topaz Denoise in the "filters" in CS5. That plug-in seems to work OK but I am having difficulty to adjust the NR. I don't understand what you say about "develop for the sensor". It does look soft indeed, but I did some more tests with the same gear inside with a calendar for target .... very sharp! ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:17 PM ---------- Originally posted by Tjompen1968 Do you shoot in RAW? Increasing the brightness is the same as raising the ISO. Hard to tell... ...and I had the same experience as jatrax. Yes, I always shoot RAW (DNG). ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:20 PM ---------- Originally posted by jbinpg Looks like my SOOC K-3 shots, JP. The K-3 images are highly malleable, though. So whether you do it in-camera with JPG or in post with RAW, you can make these much sharper and less dull from gray day conditions by working with them. Oh, and the K-3's supposed huge grain disappears easily in post, also. I am going to try to make them look better but it seems to need much more "work" in PP vs. files from my K5. Honestly, I am disappointed with these images of today. ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:21 PM ---------- Originally posted by aleonx3 JP, I think that is what I expect it (quite good) although I don't have the DA*300/f4 lens. Are you taking RAW or JPG from the camera? The grainy look of the background is expected, and it will clean up nicely if you apply noise reduction during RAW development not in JPG. All RAW (DNG), then opened in Photoshop CS5 via Camera Raw. I was thinking of using the Pentax/Ricoh PDCU 5 provided with the K3 .... which I installed on my PC, and wonder if that would help any?

02-20-2016, 02:28 PM	#7
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	You are a tad front focussed. Otherwise it looks pretty normal. Start from scratch with your denoise process. What works with the k5 doesn't with the k3.

02-20-2016, 02:29 PM	#8
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	These are the data .... EXIF data: f5.0 1/1600 s ISO-500 Exp. bias 0 focal length 300 mm Metering: spot Contrast: hard (K3 original settings) Sharpness: hard (K3 original settings) WB: Auto ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:32 PM ---------- Originally posted by derekkite You are a tad front focussed. Otherwise it looks pretty normal. Start from scratch with your denoise process. What works with the k5 doesn't with the k3. OK, I'll check for the front focus ... I will come back and show some of the shots I took inside which look "ok" though. Denoise: I have done a bit minutes ago ... started with the minimal amount of noise reduction which did not make much difference and as soon as I increase it a tad, it shows too much "softening" (or "lissage"). BTW, I have, or supposed to have, all of the NR "OFF" in camera.

02-20-2016, 02:49 PM	#9
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by jpzk These are the data .... EXIF data: f5.0 1/1600 s ISO-500 Exp. bias 0 focal length 300 mm Metering: spot Contrast: hard (K3 original settings) Sharpness: hard (K3 original settings) WB: Auto ---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 04:32 PM ---------- OK, I'll check for the front focus ... I will come back and show some of the shots I took inside which look "ok" though. Denoise: I have done a bit minutes ago ... started with the minimal amount of noise reduction which did not make much difference and as soon as I increase it a tad, it shows too much "softening" (or "lissage"). BTW, I have, or supposed to have, all of the NR "OFF" in camera. Are you shooting raw? 1600 f5 500iso is a bright day here. I tend to under expose slightly. Look at the branches to the left. They are slightly closer and sharper. What I have found is the falloff is dramatic. Slightly out of focus like that on the k5 wouldn't show up with the aa filter and lower resolution. Same with noise. Part of mastering the K3 is finding the sweet spots.

02-20-2016, 02:51 PM	#10
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	TBH, I was using LR and Topaz denoize before and face similar problems with de-noise RAW files. After I use SIlkypix 6, which remove noise automatically base on the camera setting, I have not had any problems with any of my photos even though sometimes when it is grossly underexposed. Now, I use LR only for final touches of JPG files, watermarks and catalogue capability only.

02-20-2016, 03:16 PM - 1 Like	#12
NZ_Ross Kiwi Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Timaru Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,225	For what it is worth, I had exactly the same reaction when I moved from the K-5 to the K-3. Something along the lines of 'what have I done, have I got this badly wrong' I had put 30,000 images through the K-5 and had got very familiar with the settings that made the camera images pop. The K-3 output by comparison looked dull and washed out (landscapes and cityscapes for me mainly), and initially I wasn't happy - but I was shooting RAW and PP as I had for the K-5. Different sensor and different output. After about 3 months I got used to what the K-3 produced, and how to shoot for that - if that makes any sense. I also adjusted my PP a little. I would have to say that I have been very happy with the K-3 output - there is a more detail to be had (no AA filter helps there too), and subtle colour available. Another observation - a 24MP sensor requires more shot discipline than a 16MP sensor - because you have much more detail, you notice the stuff that isn't right in the image a lot more quickly than with the K-5 sensor. I think that was part of it with me moving up from the K-5 to the K-3 - little things I got away with on the K-5 I got 'punished' with on the K-3 and wasn't happy. I have learnt, and now can consistently get the output I want from the K-3, but it was a challenge initially. It is similar to the conversations I have had with people using the Zeiss ZK 35/2 lens. It is a lens that if you get everything right just knocks you over with how good the images are. Get it a tiny bit out of focus and the images look terrible. People who have just purchased this lens sometimes ask questions - is their's a bad sample, is the lens really this low quality. When advised to use the lens in a couple of ways, and they get the 'famous' results - they realise it was them, not the lens. All I can advise is stick with the K-3, learn how to use it and get the best out of the sensor, and you will be very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the results. Ross

02-20-2016, 03:58 PM	#13
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by aleonx3 TBH, I was using LR and Topaz denoize before and face similar problems with de-noise RAW files. After I use SIlkypix 6, which remove noise automatically base on the camera setting, I have not had any problems with any of my photos even though sometimes when it is grossly underexposed. Now, I use LR only for final touches of JPG files, watermarks and catalogue capability only. I have set the K3 with absolutely no NR at all ... I'll have to deal with that in PP and hopefully Denoise or an older (free) version of Noiseware Pro will do the trick. I also do not have Lightroom: just CS5 (with the Topaz Denoise plug-in) and PDCU 5 . As for Silkypix .... I just don't want to have to dish out more $$ at the moment. Seems to be quite costly.

02-20-2016, 04:07 PM	#14
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by jpzk I have set the K3 with absolutely no NR at all ... I'll have to deal with that in PP and hopefully Denoise or an older (free) version of Noiseware Pro will do the trick. I also do not have Lightroom: just CS5 (with the Topaz Denoise plug-in) and PDCU 5 . As for Silkypix .... I just don't want to have to dish out more $$ at the moment. Seems to be quite costly. I faced the same dilemma before, and because I have so many photos (thousands) to process each time after a gig, I had thought about that before. I didn't like the previous versions of Silkypix (prior to 6). I just use the standard version which surprisingly is cheaper (currently on special price) than Photoshop elements and LR. I am a very happy user of Silkypix now, of course, YMMV.

02-20-2016, 04:19 PM	#15
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by jpzk I am not sure whether there are "presets" applied when I open the image(s) in CS5 ... I don't have Lightroom but I do have Topaz Denoise in the "filters" in CS5. That plug-in seems to work OK but I am having difficulty to adjust the NR. I don't understand what you say about "develop for the sensor". I don't know if CS5 applies anything by default on import so I cannot help there. Lightroom is 'script' driven so on import it will apply automatically a set of adjustments if you want, which I do. What I mean by develop for the sensor is simply forget everything you learned or did with your k-5 images. The K-3 is different, the sensor does not produce the same image as the k-5. If you develop a k-3 image the same as a k-5 image you will be disappointed. I am definitely not the only one to notice that. There were a lot of complaints initially as people used k-5 develop settings on k-3 images with poor results. Several initial reviews were very negative, I suspect because of this reason. So, basically forget everything you know about developing an image and start over. K-3 sensor is different. My reaction, at first, was the same as NZ_Ross "what have I done". Seriously considered sending the k-3 back! But glad I did not, the image quality is there you just have to learn how the sensor reacts. Think of it as learning to develop a different brand of film. Things are mostly the same, but not completely and that gets you in trouble.