[Larrymc]

Can we get a noisy photo and have a "shoot out"? Lets let every champion of each software show their magic.

As long as the original is a RAW file and not JPEG. DXO photoLab Prime doesn't denoise JPEGs.

[Larrymc]

I've downloaded DxO plugins on the strength of this thread and tried them out. I'm not seeing a great advantage over Lightroom, which is ultimately what I'm looking for in a bid not to move to Adobe's subscription model. The trade offs seem to be the same. DxO gives you a quick hit which initially looks good but in a side by side comparison you can achieve the same in Lightroom and DxO doesn't avoid introducing the same artefacts you get from too much sharpening or too much noise reduction. If I sharpen to the same levels in Lightroom, I get the same artefacts I see in DxO, except initially you don't notice those artefacts appear in DxO because of the jump to a different window (on the plugins). Now I hasten to add, I've only just started playing and I've got 30 further days to experiment, so...


I'm also not using photolab, which means I'm having to hop in and out of the different programs via the Edit In command, so that's also doubling my workflow. I'm coming at this from the same place I think, except my place is the K5 not the K50. It was all hunky dory until I got a longer lens and started pointing it at things that move and requiring higher iso's and I'm not even going to mention focusing!

Are you using PhotoLab 3.3? There is no reason to use plugins at all if you are using PhotoLab plus I'm not sure if you are getting the benefits of the Prime Noise reduction algorithm when developing RAWs in Lightroom with DXO Plugins.

Additionally, the results of DXO Prime noise reduction can not be seen until the export of the RAW to JPEG. So for a true comparison you must fully process the RAW file to JPEG in both Programs for a true comparison.

[3by2]

1. DxO Prime noise reduction is a feature of PhotoLab Elite, so you don't get this with the Nik Collection nor with the standard version of PhotoLab which is provided with it. Amazing as it is, Prime is not a magic bullet.
2. Too much is too much editing - here sharpening and noise reduction - in any conversion software, so of course you're seeing artefacts. One part of familiarizing yourself with a new piece of software is getting your own bearings of how much is too much. And that, as you're suggesting yourself, may take a little more time. Only you can decide if you find the results compelling.

I'd wrongly assumed that the Elite extras were the plugins added in to Photolab, it seems not. Therefore I'll try Photolab separately. I'm not liking the plugins anyway, I'm not seeing anything so far that i can't do independently but it was mainly the sharpening and noise I wanted to compare.

---------- Post added 02-07-20 at 12:06 PM ----------

Are you using PhotoLab 3.3? There is no reason to use plugins at all if you are using PhotoLab plus I'm not sure if you are getting the benefits of the Prime Noise reduction algorithm when developing RAWs in Lightroom with DXO Plugins.

Additionally, the results of DXO Prime noise reduction can not be seen until the export of the RAW to JPEG. So for a true comparison you must fully process the RAW file to JPEG in both Programs for a true comparison.

I wasn't using Photolab I'll give that a try. The Nik plugin works quite differently and gives you a preview.

[Sykil]

Check out DPReview's studio comparison tool:

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

To my eye, the KP is the clear winner in terms of noise at high ISO. The K-70 is noticeably worse side-by-side but not really that far behind. Both are much better than any of the APS-Cs released after and including the K-50. Those results look worth it to me personally, but it all depends on how it looks to you, your situation and how much you can get the upgrade for. To get any better than the KP (within the Pentax line), you'd have to upgrade to full-frame, but then you may need to change lenses as well.

[3by2]

I can confirm to the OP that Photoshop Elite is astonishingly good!

[Kobie]

I can confirm to the OP that Photoshop Elite is astonishingly good!

Did you mean Photolab Elite?

[3by2]

Did you mean Photolab Elite?

I did

[Larrymc]

I'd wrongly assumed that the Elite extras were the plugins added in to Photolab, it seems not. Therefore I'll try Photolab separately. I'm not liking the plugins anyway, I'm not seeing anything so far that i can't do independently but it was mainly the sharpening and noise I wanted to compare.

---------- Post added 02-07-20 at 12:06 PM ----------



I wasn't using Photolab I'll give that a try. The Nik plugin works quite differently and gives you a preview.

Once you get PhotoLab 3 set up there are some very good turorials on line. This one is very comprehensive Efficiency with DxO PhotoLab by a gentleman named Pacsal Pele'. Take your time learning PhotoLab.

Here is some additional info to use to familiarize yourself with DXO PhotoLab DxO PhotoLab par l'utilisateur

[MaineNative]

I use the Noiseware add-in/filter for Photoshop & Lightroom. The default options work pretty well, but you can adjust detail protection vs noise reduction together.

I liked the older versions a little better because it was easier to sample open areas like sky and use that to adjust the noise reduction.

[RussV]

+1 for Dxo Photolab Elite.
The license allows for installs to 3 computers, might be useful to some. It also integrates nicely with the free Google Nik version.

[zapp]

I am curious about noise reduction. On occasion travelling, I need to shoot without tripod or flash in low light. My K-50 can handle ISO 6400 fairly well for grabbing an image for posterity, but it is often a bit noisy past 3200 to make a nice print. Would I be better off getting certain denoise software (I find Nik dFine tends to reduce detail too much), or are newer Pentax bodies noticeably better at higher ISO? I also can’t wrap my head around smaller pixels in newer sensors being better in this regard. Any real-world experience shed some light on this? Thanks.

Starting with low noise is always best, so a new camera makes sense.
Reducing noise in existing images, software gets better with time, so look fo4 5he best and latest offerings.
Using extreme iso not often and just missing only one stop to happiness, software is the first step.

[MikeMcE]

When ever I see this discussion I need to think back to the *istD. ISO3200 on the *istD exceeded any color film up to that time and was equal to Kodak tri-x 400 ISO B&W Pushed to ISO 3200.

I have always marvelled at the continuing complaints about high ISO performance of DSLRs and never understood Completely the Need / desire for The ultimate photograph. In fact, even during the film era, many shots taken with grainy images added something to the overall mood of the image. It suggested the conditions were dark (and they were)

Agreed, but that makes us dinosaurs by “using that fact” my favorite was in an alley late ....Tri X @ASA 6400, 200 f2.8 EDIF with F2 Nikon 1/30 @2.8 a firefighter blowing life into a baby he’s rescued! Gritty and dark! WI Press Photo of the year (PMR) I-rarely see that drama today, due to lack of staff shooters , vs free lance. I grew up around some of the best.

[Lowell Goudge]

Agreed, but that makes us dinosaurs by “using that fact” my favorite was in an alley late ....Tri X @ASA 6400, 200 f1.8 EDIF with F2 Nikon 1/30 @2.8 a firefighter blowing life into a baby he’s rescued! Gritty and dark! WI Press Photo of the year (PMR) I-rarely see that drama today, due to lack of staff shooters , vs free lance. I grew up around some of the best.

I used to shoot the KX (the film body, not the K-X DSLR) Loaded with tri-x pushed to 3200 with the K50/1.4 wide open at about 1/30th

In the 1980’s you could walk around at night and nobody took any notice at night with a guy with a camera

Show us your grain! - PentaxForums.com

Between grain, and monochrome, you’re right the images add a quality not captured in our somewhat spoiled perfection driven technology of today. But is it lack of staff photogs or the editors having a different standard.

This thread died in 2012.

[superdave]

Have you tried Topaz Denoise AI? DXO Prime images has lot of artifacts in my opinion. Denoise AI produce noisefree, more natural and sharper images that every other piece of software I tried. Bonus: it even improve images taken at 100 iso! I am not afraid of noise anymore with my K-3II

[Madaboutpix]

Have you tried Topaz Denoise AI? DXO Prime images has lot of artifacts in my opinion. Denoise AI produce noisefree, more natural and sharper images that every other piece of software I tried. Bonus: it even improve images taken at 100 iso! I am not afraid of noise anymore with my K-3II

Well. Topaz Denoise AI may have a slight edge over Prime right now. Does it mean DxO is garbage all of a sudden? Probably not. The amount of artefacts you are getting has a lot to do with the way you stick with default values or even crank up those levers in my experience. I have been using DxO products since 2015, and while there is no harm in trying new things and alternatives, why would I give up something that has consistently enriched my editing, something that I have taken the time to learn to fruition? DxO OpticsPro/PhotoLab has got better in some way with each new iteration, and at some point, I'm confident, programmers at DxO will think of further evolving their Prime noise reduction too (if they haven't done so already).

Maybe it is to do with age, but, personally, I've grown tired of always chaising the next great thing just because temporarily the grass seems a little greener on the other side of the fence ...

That said, competition is always a good thing, and if you're finding improvement and joy in Topaz, by all means do, of course.