Developments in Z9 RAW file editing files.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wassa1957

Active member
Member's gallery
OK. I have read a lot of different comments. I, personally, found NX Studio helpful but has anyone found a product that can process HE star without noise pr. Yes for low ISO shots Adobe is OK but still does not support Z9 fully.
I found with over 18 days of an alaska trip I had to noise issues. Please do not send lectures on ISO as I'm just after advice on editing software that is compatible.
My non Nikon DSLR photos were no problem in Adobe?
 
Member's gallery
I find that Adobe fully supports HE* and HE files. Enclosed is one of my photographs taken in HE* at 8000 ISO and f/6.3 with my Z9 from one of my Alaska trips this year. This was processed in Lightroom Classic and exported as a JPEG. This was a the start of our first day of rafting, so I had on a small lens, the 24-200. AF mode was wide-area with animal detect on.
JHoyt-20220910-1626-47-6365.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I have read a lot about this issue on many different forums and Facebook groups. I have done some of my own testing and find that Lightroom handles the files just fine. I opened up the same raw image in Lightroom and NX studio side by side. On the surface the NX studio image looks nicer with brighter colors and less noise. But after a little digging the NX studio is automatically adding some NR I think (high normal low off) with normal as default with the Lightroom I was comparing it to having no NR so of course the NX was going to appear less to have less noise. Then as for the colors when I changed my Lightroom raw profile to camera standard from Adobe colors that made a big difference and the images matches up pretty well at this point. Then after a little more playing around if I left the raw profile at its default Adobe colors and raised my vibrance to about 15 it matches well also. So now to make my workflow a lot easier and just use one program I use Lightroom with a little noise reduction and some added vibrance they match the NX studio files pretty close. Then I’ll do my normal post processing.
 
Member's gallery
wassa1957 said:
OK. I have read a lot of different comments. I, personally, found NX Studio helpful but has anyone found a product that can process HE star without noise pr. Yes for low ISO shots Adobe is OK but still does not support Z9 fully.
I found with over 18 days of an alaska trip I had to noise issues. Please do not send lectures on ISO as I'm just after advice on editing software that is compatible.
My non Nikon DSLR photos were no problem in Adobe?
Click to expand...
The Z9 files are fully supported by adobe please stop parroting this false narrative. I regularly shoot at or above ISO 6400 and have ZERO issues with noise. check what profile your software is using. Also the Nikon software does some minor noise reduction to the files.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
The Z9 files are fully supported by adobe please stop parroting this false narrative. I regularly shoot at or above ISO 6400 and have ZERO issues with noise. check what profile your software is using. Also the Nikon software does some minor noise reduction to the files.
Click to expand...

I simply do not agree and the fact you state " parroting this false narrative" is simply inflammatory.

Others like me have very bad experiences with LRC/ACR's processing of Z9 lossless RAW files and have obtained far better results using Capture One and DxO Pure RAW 2.

I refuse to use any of the HE formats so it does not both me that other applications still cannot process them.
 
Member's gallery
ajm057 said:
I simply do not agree and the fact you state " parroting this false narrative" is simply inflammatory.

Others like me have very bad experiences with LRC/ACR's processing of Z9 lossless RAW files and have obtained far better results using Capture One and DxO Pure RAW 2.

I refuse to use any of the HE formats so it does not both me that other applications still cannot process them.
Click to expand...
All RAW still formats produced in the Z9 are FULLY supported by adobe that is a fact. Just take a second and ask yourself how and why adobe would be adding noise to raw files...... If we can agree that would be stupid of adobe to do then can we agree that maybe the other software is applying noise reduction to the files without you knowing? Adobe has no reason to add noise that isnt really there..... but the other software has every reason to "obtain better results" by any means possible than adobe. I noticed you completely glossed over the point I made about what profile you are using in adobe.
 
Member's gallery
Folks, I posted an example HE* high ISO image processed only in LR Classic as an example for the OP to show that it is possible to use only Adobe software to process Z9 RAWs w/o excessive noise. If others don’t like Adobe and chose to use other software, that’s fine with me. HE* works fine, but no one has to use it. So far I’ve never had a contest judge or someone purchasing a print ask what type of file do I shoot and what software I use to process…unless they are a fellow photographer. ;-)
 
Member's gallery
John_DE said:
Folks, I posted an example HE* high ISO image processed only in LR Classic as an example for the OP to show that it is possible to use only Adobe software to process Z9 RAWs w/o excessive noise. If others don’t like Adobe and chose to use other software, that’s fine with me. HE* works fine, but no one has to use it. So far I’ve never had a contest judge or someone purchasing a print ask what type of file do I shoot and what software I use to process…unless they are a fellow photographer. ;-)
Click to expand...
Some peoples computers for whatever reason apply a ton of texture and sharpening to the files on import. Its some random setting in the adobe settings. Mine did it when I first got the camera in december but a couple quick clicks and the import presets can be zeroed out. I'd bet everyone who doesnt like the lightroom files has this preset applied and doesnt even know it.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
All RAW still formats produced in the Z9 are FULLY supported by adobe that is a fact. Just take a second and ask yourself how and why adobe would be adding noise to raw files...... If we can agree that would be stupid of adobe to do then can we agree that maybe the other software is applying noise reduction to the files without you knowing? Adobe has no reason to add noise that isnt really there..... but the other software has every reason to "obtain better results" by any means possible than adobe. I noticed you completely glossed over the point I made about what profile you are using in adobe.
Click to expand...
I do not believe Adobe is adding noise, it is adding too much sharpening on import which results in "noise". I only know what I'm seeing in my experiments with my photos on my computer. I wondered why my lower iso photos looked so noisy. Removing the default sharpening on import fixed it for me.

I'm not sure how someone's computer could be adding a ton of texture and sharpening on import if the program was not instructing it to do so.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
All RAW still formats produced in the Z9 are FULLY supported by adobe that is a fact. Just take a second and ask yourself how and why adobe would be adding noise to raw files...... If we can agree that would be stupid of adobe to do then can we agree that maybe the other software is applying noise reduction to the files without you knowing? Adobe has no reason to add noise that isnt really there..... but the other software has every reason to "obtain better results" by any means possible than adobe. I noticed you completely glossed over the point I made about what profile you are using in adobe.
Click to expand...

If your posts were remotely reasonable or welcoming you would receive a response. Be happy you are now both reported and ignored, by me at least.
 
Member's gallery
John_DE said:
Folks, I posted an example HE* high ISO image processed only in LR Classic as an example for the OP to show that it is possible to use only Adobe software to process Z9 RAWs w/o excessive noise. If others don’t like Adobe and chose to use other software, that’s fine with me. HE* works fine, but no one has to use it. So far I’ve never had a contest judge or someone purchasing a print ask what type of file do I shoot and what software I use to process…unless they are a fellow photographer. ;-)
Click to expand...
LR Classic is a great raw converter and I have no trouble with HE and HE* files from my Z9. However, it is suboptimal with sharpening and NR with high ISO files. Matt Kloskowski discusses this at length in his day 3 presentation in the Lightroom Virtual summit 2022. It may still be available for free viewing. Turn off LR sharpening and NR and use Topaz Denoise. It does a great job in removing noise and it also does a good job of sharpening at the same time. Both Matt and I find that further sharpening is not usually needed.

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I understand what you are saying about the difference between low ISO shots and (presumably) higher ISO from HE* files in Adobe (at least LR). Low ISO is Ok and may be something to do with people coming back reporting 'no issues'. Im shooting a lot in very poor light so I quickly stopped using HE*. If stuck with HE* and adobe LR however the only thing that helped me was to always have sharpening at zero. Even then noise reduction in LR isnt great compared with the likes of DXO. I then used Smart Sharpen in Photoshop for final JPEG outputs where there is also a noise slider in there thats a little better than LR. I just checked DXO PL 6 and still looks like they dont support HE* but they will in time (like they did with Fuji XT files) but only when they are happy with the quality. (unlike Adobe) There is a workaround to convert to DNG and then DXO will handle noie reduction. (DXO point to Adobe DNG converter to do this)
Topaz is a possibility (if it will handle HE*) but the downside is its randomness as to whether it does a good job or not ((compared with DXO anyway) and of course the output is a TIF. I use DXO 9/10 times but I've got Topaz Photo AI in case needed. (mainly motion blurred rescue jobs) Topaz Photo AI is a step forwards because it does a pretty good job of deciding whether the import image has motion blur or lens blur and deciding whether you need noise reduction, sharpening or both - something I aways struggled with when Topaz was a bundle of seperate components. Thats it - all I can think of from what I went through with HE* files.
 
Member's gallery
TonyF said:
I understand what you are saying about the difference between low ISO shots and (presumably) higher ISO from HE* files in Adobe (at least LR). Low ISO is Ok and may be something to do with people coming back reporting 'no issues'. Im shooting a lot in very poor light so I quickly stopped using HE*. If stuck with HE* and adobe LR however the only thing that helped me was to always have sharpening at zero. Even then noise reduction in LR isnt great compared with the likes of DXO. I then used Smart Sharpen in Photoshop for final JPEG outputs where there is also a noise slider in there thats a little better than LR. I just checked DXO PL 6 and still looks like they dont support HE* but they will in time (like they did with Fuji XT files) but only when they are happy with the quality. (unlike Adobe) There is a workaround to convert to DNG and then DXO will handle noie reduction. (DXO point to Adobe DNG converter to do this)
Topaz is a possibility (if it will handle HE*) but the downside is its randomness as to whether it does a good job or not ((compared with DXO anyway) and of course the output is a TIF. I use DXO 9/10 times but I've got Topaz Photo AI in case needed. (mainly motion blurred rescue jobs) Topaz Photo AI is a step forwards because it does a pretty good job of deciding whether the import image has motion blur or lens blur and deciding whether you need noise reduction, sharpening or both - something I aways struggled with when Topaz was a bundle of seperate components. Thats it - all I can think of from what I went through with HE* files.
Click to expand...
Id really like to know how I seem to get results that some people say just isnt possible. I shoot at or around ISO 6400 regularly. I ONLY shoot in HE* and I ONLY process with adobe.
 
Member's gallery
TonyF said:
I understand what you are saying about the difference between low ISO shots and (presumably) higher ISO from HE* files in Adobe (at least LR). Low ISO is Ok and may be something to do with people coming back reporting 'no issues'. Im shooting a lot in very poor light so I quickly stopped using HE*. If stuck with HE* and adobe LR however the only thing that helped me was to always have sharpening at zero. Even then noise reduction in LR isnt great compared with the likes of DXO. I then used Smart Sharpen in Photoshop for final JPEG outputs where there is also a noise slider in there thats a little better than LR. I just checked DXO PL 6 and still looks like they dont support HE* but they will in time (like they did with Fuji XT files) but only when they are happy with the quality. (unlike Adobe) There is a workaround to convert to DNG and then DXO will handle noie reduction. (DXO point to Adobe DNG converter to do this)
Topaz is a possibility (if it will handle HE*) but the downside is its randomness as to whether it does a good job or not ((compared with DXO anyway) and of course the output is a TIF. I use DXO 9/10 times but I've got Topaz Photo AI in case needed. (mainly motion blurred rescue jobs) Topaz Photo AI is a step forwards because it does a pretty good job of deciding whether the import image has motion blur or lens blur and deciding whether you need noise reduction, sharpening or both - something I aways struggled with when Topaz was a bundle of seperate components. Thats it - all I can think of from what I went through with HE* files.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is precisely the problem. I use Topaz to get around it in Ps after opening in LRC. DXO is too expensive at the moment with AUD to USD but have been keeping my eye open. All I was looking for was feedback on people using other types of software.
 
Member's gallery
lukemeup said:
In my case the trick with processing Z9 files in LRC was to not apply the camera profile settings on import and instead import files with Adobe default as the starting point (+treating the noise with Topaz). Made night & day difference.

Click to expand...
This is what Ive been trying to tell people. I brought it up in post #4. You would think people would listen to other people who say they are not having the issue but instead they seem to just want to blame adobe for their own ignorance.
 
Member's gallery
I created an import preset that ‘zeroes out‘ noise reduction and sharpening, applies a linear profile and lens correction (it includes NO texture, clarity, vibrance, etc which is applied when using a camera setting). The imported raw from the Z9 is very flat looking vs importing with the camera setting or Adobe preset, This allows you more latitude when processing with the ability to utilize the noise/sharping process or plug-in of choice, It seems to work equally well on HE* raw photos.

Anthony Morganti posted a helpful video that reviews the process of creating and applying a raw import preset (which works a bit differently than a develop preset),

Regards,
Marty
 
Last edited:
Marty K said:
I created an import preset that ‘zeroes out‘ noise reduction and sharpening, applies a linear profile and lens correction (it includes NO texture, clarity, vibrance, etc which is applied when using a camera setting). The imported raw from the Z9 is very flat looking vs importing with the camera setting or Adobe preset, This allows you more latitude when processing the ability to utilize the noise/sharping process or plug-in of choice, It seems to work equally well on HE* raw photos.

Anthony Morganti posted a helpful video that reviews the process of creating and applying a raw import preset (which works a bit differently than a develop preset),

Regards,
Marty
Click to expand...


Can you expand on what you mean by a linear profile?
 
Member's gallery
Check out the article by Tony Kuyper, Marty mentioned above. They are basically a flat line vs a curve.
I've used them in the past for my SLR cameras, but haven't made any for my Z cameras yet. They can be very useful in some situations, but unless things have change (very possible) they take some getting used to.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
Id really like to know how I seem to get results that some people say just isnt possible. I shoot at or around ISO 6400 regularly. I ONLY shoot in HE* and I ONLY process with adobe.
Click to expand...
I agree; results can be fine with HE* at ISO 6400. If the subject is large in the frame and/or there is minimal cropping then ISO 6400 would not present much of an issue. Perfect exposure seems to help too. There's probably more but these are the main factors I've experienced when it comes to high ISO images working or not.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
Id really like to know how I seem to get results that some people say just isnt possible. I shoot at or around ISO 6400 regularly. I ONLY shoot in HE* and I ONLY process with adobe.
Click to expand...
Consider yourself lucky.

I have no doubt what you are saying is true for you. Just please don't automatically discount the experience of others when their results differ. There are just too many variables between computers and individual perception to make such a blanket statement.
Yes, there will always be those that jump on an internet bandwagon. There are also plenty of others who come to their own conclusions before searching to see if others have the same problem.

Your mileage will always differ.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
Changing the import settings in lightroom isnt a matter of "luck". If other peoples experiences differ from those of us that figured this out maybe they should listen to what we say as opposed to being dismissive.
Click to expand...
Ummmm..... if you read my previous messages you will see I was one of the first to suggest the problem was the sharpening slider and that it was an easy fix. I NEVER said the problem was universal! I also never said the problem does not exist.
I'm done with this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top