[bobbotron]

I actually like the subtle grain in this, I’ll give it a go but I shoot film, I’m friends with grain.

[gatorguy]

I actually like the subtle grain in this, I’ll give it a go but I shoot film, I’m friends with grain.

Topaz Sharpen gives you the option of adding grain, so yes grain can be your friend.

[MossyRocks]

That is a nice final image showing what can be done. I just need to get better at post processing.

[subsea]

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 ----------



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.

A suggestion: try using the "highlight weighted" metering mode. I've used it for sunsets where the sky would still be very bright. It seems to automatically reduce the exposure to eliminate blowing out the sky (or other very bright areas) while also leaving detail recoverable from the shadow areas. So far I've been very happy with the shots I've taken with it. Note that the EXIF data will show the metering mode as "other" if you use it. The effect can be rather subtle, but noticeable.

[bobbotron]

Topaz Sharpen gives you the option of adding grain, so yes grain can be your friend.

Yeah, I bought them both at Christmas time in a sale bundle via the forum. I have the latest version of lightroom, and often find the results very close. I tried doing the "light touch" adjustment, but then I wonder if it's really worth it. My biggest gripe is sometimes the denoise will randomly not denoise a portion of the sky, which I feel is worse than nothing. That said, interesting tools, I'll have to keep trying it. One of those things where it would be really interesting to spend some time with someone that knows the tool well to see how they approach it.

[Robert N]

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

Comparisons of dynamic ranges of all current cameras are shown in the link below. The K-3iii and K-1ii are pretty well leaders of the pack. I own the K-3iii and very impressed with its overall performance (I added a glowing review of the K-3iii recently).

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20Z%2050,Nikon%20Z%207I...ax%20K-3%20III

[bobbotron]

Another good example. I was in the Denver airport yesterday. It was a huge rush, but I wanted to get a photo or two of the somewhat infamous Denver airport. I took this photo, but by accident my camera was set to -1.7 ev from the night before. This was at ISO 1600, then pulled up quite a bit in lightroom.

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Yeah, I bought them both at Christmas time in a sale bundle via the forum. I have the latest version of lightroom, and often find the results very close. I tried doing the "light touch" adjustment, but then I wonder if it's really worth it. My biggest gripe is sometimes the denoise will randomly not denoise a portion of the sky, which I feel is worse than nothing. That said, interesting tools, I'll have to keep trying it. One of those things where it would be really interesting to spend some time with someone that knows the tool well to see how they approach it.

I have an older version of Adobe LR and also a Topaz Denoise plugin I purchased a few years back.
I have not used it much as the noise slider in LR seems to be enough for me. Perhaps I should experiment with Topaz more but I find it doesn't offer much over LR.

[mtkeller]

I have an older version of Adobe LR and also a Topaz Denoise plugin I purchased a few years back.
I have not used it much as the noise slider in LR seems to be enough for me. Perhaps I should experiment with Topaz more but I find it doesn't offer much over LR.

Try shooting soccer at night at 25,600. LR doesn’t do well on that noise reduction. Topaz makes it like you reduced noise with 800 as your start.

[simon_199]

Comparisons of dynamic ranges of all current cameras are shown in the link below. The K-3iii and K-1ii are pretty well leaders of the pack. I own the K-3iii and very impressed with its overall performance (I added a glowing review of the K-3iii recently).

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20Z%2050,Nikon%20Z%207I...ax%20K-3%20III

Those numbers are clearly influenced by aggressive in-camera noise reduction applied to raw files. Those sudden jumps in the behaviour are unphysical. Yes they are present in some other camera models but not to this massive extent. If you notice also in the graph the Pentax curves are marked with downward facing triangles which are labelled as "noise reduction". Clear evidence of this can be appreciated simply by comparing the reported DR for K-1 and K-1ii. Same sensor, completely different behaviour. Only difference is the accelerator chip. The first behaves (as expected) on par with a D810-D850 class sensor, while the latter shows this massive advantage but there's no free lunch, sensor technology is the same and there's no other way besides pre-applied noise reduction to obtain such results with the same(ish) sensor.

[Robert N]

Those numbers are clearly influenced by aggressive in-camera noise reduction applied to raw files. Those sudden jumps in the behaviour are unphysical. Yes they are present in some other camera models but not to this massive extent. If you notice also in the graph the Pentax curves are marked with downward facing triangles which are labelled as "noise reduction". Clear evidence of this can be appreciated simply by comparing the reported DR for K-1 and K-1ii. Same sensor, completely different behaviour. Only difference is the accelerator chip. The first behaves (as expected) on par with a D810-D850 class sensor, while the latter shows this massive advantage but there's no free lunch, sensor technology is the same and there's no other way besides pre-applied noise reduction to obtain such results with the same(ish) sensor.

Even if noise reduction is baked in, I have no problem with that, as it has been performed very well by Pentax, with excellent image quality being maintained at higher ISOs than previous models.

[gatorguy]

Those numbers are clearly influenced by aggressive in-camera noise reduction applied to raw files. Those sudden jumps in the behaviour are unphysical. Yes they are present in some other camera models but not to this massive extent. If you notice also in the graph the Pentax curves are marked with downward facing triangles which are labelled as "noise reduction". Clear evidence of this can be appreciated simply by comparing the reported DR for K-1 and K-1ii. Same sensor, completely different behaviour. Only difference is the accelerator chip. The first behaves (as expected) on par with a D810-D850 class sensor, while the latter shows this massive advantage but there's no free lunch, sensor technology is the same and there's no other way besides pre-applied noise reduction to obtain such results with the same(ish) sensor.

After shooting RAW images there's software from several companies you can use to open and import them for processing. DxO, Adobe, On1, and Capture One do not all do so exactly the same, and some are considered "better" than others for your photo quality. Same here with the noise-reduction developed for Pentax cameras. They may just be better than others. Are there side-by-side identical scenes shot with the D850 and the K1 for example? There probably are. If you can't see the negative effect of Pentax noise reduction in a real-life image there's no reason to assume it must be bad simply because it was done.

IMO Pentax has just become exceptionally good at it while mitigating negative impact on the resultant RAW files. Obviously the other camera companies have taken notice, particularly so with Canon whose latest cameras are praised for the images they capture.
R5 dynamic range is real - FM Forums

[simon_199]

Even if noise reduction is baked in, I have no problem with that, as it has been performed very well by Pentax, with excellent image quality being maintained at higher ISOs than previous models.

Generally speaking I have no problem either. Yet it depends on how it's implemented and how it affects the performance of NR software. I'll try to better explain my point of view. Assume for the sake of discussion that there is some unit that measures an "amount of noise reduction" applied to a raw file. Nobody is going to publish raw files with no NR applied, let's assume that there is an average optimal "amount" of NR to be applied in order to produce a clean jpeg image, and that this amount is 100. No camera clearly outputs "raw" data from the sensor, literally speaking. There will always be some preprocessing going on behind the scenes before the raw file is presented to the user. This preprocessing could or could not also include a certain amount of noise reduction could be 0 , 10, 50 out of that hypothetical total of 100 needed to output a final image. The remaining portion will have to be handled by noise reduction software off camera. Data clearly suggest that in Pentax models with the accelerator chip the manufacturer has opted to shift a portion of noise reduction duties to the preprocessing, in-camera, side that is significantly higher than the average for other manufacturers. I know it's a fairly controversial topic and the argument that "all cameras produce preprocessed raw files" is often made, but I think we can agree on my last statement. It's "above average", not implying that nobody else does the same.

In principle, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this choice. But...it is reasonable to expect that software side NR algorithms, the theory on which they are based, and their implementation, will be fine tuned to how the majority of sensors operate. Yes, even if there are some camera-specific parameters that could be adjusted. There's no reason, in principle, why there could not exist a specific preset or version or whatever NR algorithms that is fine-tuned to behave better with this different compromise that pentax has chosen. Yet, this is not the case for most of the software i have tried to compare behaviour with k1 Vs K-1ii with is an ideal test case.

[gatorguy]

Generally speaking I have no problem either. Yet it depends on how it's implemented and how it affects the performance of NR software. I'll try to better explain my point of view. Assume for the sake of discussion that there is some unit that measures an "amount of noise reduction" applied to a raw file. Nobody is going to publish raw files with no NR applied, let's assume that there is an average optimal "amount" of NR to be applied in order to produce a clean jpeg image, and that this amount is 100. No camera clearly outputs "raw" data from the sensor, literally speaking. There will always be some preprocessing going on behind the scenes before the raw file is presented to the user. This preprocessing could or could not also include a certain amount of noise reduction could be 0 , 10, 50 out of that hypothetical total of 100 needed to output a final image. The remaining portion will have to be handled by noise reduction software off camera. Data clearly suggest that in Pentax models with the accelerator chip the manufacturer has opted to shift a portion of noise reduction duties to the preprocessing, in-camera, side that is significantly higher than the average for other manufacturers. I know it's a fairly controversial topic and the argument that "all cameras produce preprocessed raw files" is often made, but I think we can agree on my last statement. It's "above average", not implying that nobody else does the same.

In principle, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this choice. But...it is reasonable to expect that software side NR algorithms, the theory on which they are based, and their implementation, will be fine tuned to how the majority of sensors operate. Yes, even if there are some camera-specific parameters that could be adjusted. There's no reason, in principle, why there could not exist a specific preset or version or whatever NR algorithms that is fine-tuned to behave better with this different compromise that pentax has chosen. Yet, this is not the case for most of the software i have tried to compare behaviour with k1 Vs K-1ii with is an ideal test case.

I don't think that bolded part is entirely accurate. Have you tried DxO which presumably is tuned to the specific camera/processor/lens? AFAIK Adobe does the same, having profiles for specific camera/processor combinations in Camera Raw. Capture One definitely does too. A cheaper software such as Luminar may simply average things out. No idea about them.

Still, a theoretical "it must be bad because logically nothing comes free" isn't much concern if the resultant OOC RAW images almost always look at least as good if not better than a competitors with more dynamic range than if it wasn't applied. Doing so in-camera, carefully matched during development with the actual chosen processor traits and shortfalls (there's always some), makes more sense to me than NR defaults in a third party RAW importer that isn't tuned to the camera specifics. That's why so many of us are anxious for Adobe and DxO to finish profiling and add our new cameras to the support list. Until they do the imported photos aren't as dynamic or detailed as the camera was designed to produce.

[bobbotron]

At the end of the day, I'm doing things with this camera that wouldn't have come out as well with my original K3.

Thanks for the suggestions about topaz denoise, I tried it again on this image, as I realized I wanted to boost it's exposure more. Starting to get the hang of it.

---------- Post added 03-25-22 at 11:05 AM ----------

(The output)