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.
I think these days most noise is inherit to the variability in the light itself. Cameras aren't introducing very much these days, and raw processing shouldn't be introducing any new noise but some might be better at noise reduction, always at the expense of detail. Profiles or picture control settings are a lot more than color, but have curves and sharpening and nr built in. Of course the size of the sensor and the amount of cropping is a big factor. Cropping especially, I think the formula given for the noise comparison when cropping is something like the crop factor squared times the iso.

So the only way really to judge the best workflow for ones individual preferences is to use the same raw file and then try out different raw converters with different profiles.

In the end there are objective standards of course, but individual preferences come into play.
 
Member's gallery
TonyF said:
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.
Click to expand...

ISO 6400 is pushing the limits of the Z9. Ideally, you should have an ETTR exposure at ISO 6400. Using manual exposure, the f/stop and shutter speed of such an exposure determines the amount of light in lux seconds falling on the sensor. The Z9 is ISO invariant above ISO 500 (see Bill Claff). To gain 3 stops of highlight protection you can set the ISO to 1600 and expose using the shutter speed and f/stop as determined for the ETTR ISO 6400 exposure. This would result in a dark image which can be pushed 3 EV in Adobe converters with the same image quality and 3 stops of highlight protection.

See Jim Kasson for an example of this technique using the Z9 with Adobe converters. A push of more than 3 stops is inadvisable.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Member's gallery
I guess everyone has suggestions that are good. I'm taking the overall approach and can see merit in them both for my current issue and to look at for the future. I'll stick with LRC then PS but I don't mind looking in NX Studio as a final judgment on my shots.
As long as you are happy with your method I'm happy for you. Truly.
Again thanks to all for your present and future advice as this forum has a great deal of information.
Thank you all.
 
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...
DXO Pure raw 1-2 still not compatible with all the Z9 files... neither than Topaz... why it takes so long? anything related to the RED sue agains Nikon????
 
Member's gallery
bjanes said:
ISO 6400 is pushing the limits of the Z9. Ideally, you should have an ETTR exposure at ISO 6400. Using manual exposure, the f/stop and shutter speed of such an exposure determines the amount of light in lux seconds falling on the sensor. The Z9 is ISO invariant above ISO 500 (see Bill Claff). To gain 3 stops of highlight protection you can set the ISO to 1600 and expose using the shutter speed and f/stop as determined for the ETTR ISO 6400 exposure. This would result in a dark image which can be pushed 3 EV in Adobe converters with the same image quality and 3 stops of highlight protection.

See Jim Kasson for an example of this technique using the Z9 with Adobe converters. A push of more than 3 stops is inadvisable.

Cheers,
Bill
Click to expand...
I disagree here is a shot at iso 6400 with no noise reduction at night. along with a very heavy crop. I dont think Id say 6400 is pushing the limits...maybe in some circumstances it is but every time Ive used 6400 its been just fine.

_Z994630.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

_Z994630-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Skye.prf said:
DXO Pure raw 1-2 still not compatible with all the Z9 files... neither than Topaz... why it takes so long? anything related to the RED sue agains Nikon????
Click to expand...
rot - Pure Raw 2 works fine with Lossless raw - i have man 10 of thousands of examples. No-one other than NXS and ADOBE touches HE/HE*
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
I disagree here is a shot at iso 6400 with no noise reduction at night. along with a very heavy crop. I dont think Id say 6400 is pushing the limits...maybe in some circumstances it is but every time Ive used 6400 its been just fine
Click to expand...

We all have our opinions on image quality. Those images look pretty good at low resolution screen resolution, but how about an A2 print?

Bill
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top