[bobbotron]

I've included the light room before and after of this photo, the shadow recovery is incredible for difficult dusk shots.

Attached Images

 

[Walkingwolf]

Now that really is impressive!

[Astropaps]

Indeed! I’ll have to take the KP out before dawn and see if I can get anywhere near your shot.

[Mooncatt]

Almost makes graduated filters and bracketing a thing of the past.

[bobbotron]

Almost makes graduated filters and bracketing a thing of the past.

It sure is good! You do have to get the exposure right so the sky isn’t blown out but also not too dark. I’m glad I got it about right for this one.

---------- Post added 03-23-22 at 07:21 AM ----------

Indeed! I’ll have to take the KP out before dawn and see if I can get anywhere near your shot.

It is a fine touch to get the sky and ground happy after. This involved two gradient filters in Lightroom to get the exposures happy.

[biz-engineer]

Not bad. Although there is a substantial amount of noise in the shadow area, it's not visible on small display because pixels are averaged for viewing, but it would be a limitation when printing this image on 20x30" paper. Exposure bracketed layers or ND grad filter methods would have been better if the goal was to print the image.

[Pål Jensen]

I don't use ND filters anymore. Nor do I use a tripod. This camera is great.

[bobbotron]

I don't use ND filters anymore. Nor do I use a tripod. This camera is great.

I love tripods, I’m a part of the ISO 100 cult. That said I agree, the camera is really good hand held in tough light. (I didn’t have a tripod with me here.)

[gatorguy]

Not bad. Although there is a substantial amount of noise in the shadow area, it's not visible on small display because pixels are averaged for viewing, but it would be a limitation when printing this image on 20x30" paper. Exposure bracketed layers or ND grad filter methods would have been better if the goal was to print the image.

A soft hand in either DxO or Topaz DeNoise and all's well for printing this one at your size barring display quality. Make it greyscale and go even larger. Not that a handful of people would have any interest whatsoever in printing the photo that large in the first place no matter how clean the image was. The fact it's captured at all in the light he was dealt is the far more important point IMHO. Sometimes you gotta go with what light you're given in the time constraints you have and using with what you're carrying. Heck a LOT more than "sometimes".

The excellent dynamic range of the K3III gives us a better chance of capturing shots in far less than ideal conditions.
So impressive recovery Bobbotron, and thanks for showing it.

[bobbotron]

A soft hand in either DxO or Topaz DeNoise and all's well for printing this one at your size. Make it greyscale and go even larger. The fact it's captured at all in the light he was dealt is the far more important point IMHO.

Impressive recovery!

It’s funny I have topaz and I’ve never had an image I feel it actually makes better. I’ll give it a try with this, I paid the money, keep trying it.

Edit: thanks for the kind words!

[gatorguy]

It’s funny I have topaz and I’ve never had an image I feel it actually makes better. I’ll give it a try with this, I paid the money, keep trying it.

I almost never use the defaults, adjusting to taste to balance detail with noise reduction. it only takes an extra minute or two, and worth it if you thought noise was distracting anyway.

[simon_199]

Interesting example. I would love to see a comparison with an older generation sensor like a K-3 to see how much things have improved in terms of real-life, practical situations like this one.

A soft hand in either DxO or Topaz DeNoise and all's well for printing this one at your size barring display quality. Make it greyscale and go even larger. Not that a handful of people would have any interest whatsoever in printing the photo that large in the first place no matter how clean the image was. The fact it's captured at all in the light he was dealt is the far more important point IMHO. Sometimes you gotta go with what light you're given in the time constraints you have and using with what you're carrying. Heck a LOT more than "sometimes".

The excellent dynamic range of the K3III gives us a better chance of capturing shots in far less than ideal conditions.
So impressive recovery Bobbotron, and thanks for showing it.

About noise reduction and the K-3III i'd like to play with some realistic samples in DxO with deepprime noise reduction. I have spent quite a lot of time, out of curiosity, comparing different studio raw samples of several newer and older sensors and see how the NR performs. Unfortunately for some inexplicable reason there is something wrong in the series of shots of the K-3III from the sources I have found. Either blurry shots, or underexposed shots that force to raise exposure in post, therefore not providing a valid comparison with other sensors. Generally, I am not a fan of the effect of the Pentax accelerator unit. It surely does wonders for in-camera jpeg images, and if you have access to more average performing noise reduction software for developing raw. However, comparing for instance the K-1 with K-1ii, the final result after noise reduction from raw at high ISO where the accelerator kicks in is significantly worse for the K-1ii. Note that this is based on shots from studio test scenes, so the setting could very well be artificial. Unfortunately I don't have access to all this cameras to test myself. Nevertheless, loss of detail in the post-NR image is really apparent, even trying to play with settings and using the other less advanced NR modes. It seems to be the case also for the KP, although there is no direct comparison as in the K-1 situation.

On the other hand, from the scarce samples that I found from the new K-3iii, except from the aforementioned and flawed studio scenes which I don't consider reliable, I was under the impression that in spite of the accelerator unit the new camera couples much better with noise reduction in postprocessing.
I know that the topic has been debated to death, and while I could agree that generally speaking the accelerator unit is an improvement, that in most real-life situations there'll be plenty of detail left, and that if you are shooting at high-iso then probably ultimate detail wasn't so critical in the first place; fair enough. Yet, it's one of the factors that i'm considering in evaluating an (unlikely, given the price) upgrade to the new K-3iii.

[Mooncatt]

I love tripods, I’m a part of the ISO 100 cult. That said I agree, the camera is really good hand held in tough light. (I didn’t have a tripod with me here.)

I try to specialize in tough light situations. Lol. I'd love to upgrade to the mkIII, but it's out of my price range for now. I may rent it the next time I go to a jet car racing event. The lighting extremes for them at night make your original shot look almost normal.

[Mooncatt]

I almost never use the defaults, adjusting to taste to balance detail with noise reduction. it only takes an extra minute or two, and worth it if you thought noise was distracting anyway.

Same here. I've found the low light model works best for me in terms of retaining details, and then only a small amount of noise reduction is usually needed. If details are blurred more than its sharpening and detail recovering can handle, I'll run it through Sharpen AI as well. Great programs, but the auto mode is too aggressive IMHO. It's also helpful to make use of the masking options so it doesn't mistake things like textured fabric for noise.

[Larrymc]

I've included the light room before and after of this photo, the shadow recovery is incredible for difficult dusk shots.

Quite impressive, I tend to forget how much detail can be recovered from a Mk III image!