# Tufted Coquette - Re-processing an old file with great results!



## Glenn Bartley (Jul 17, 2021)

There is ome pretty awesome new software on the market these days. I went back and re-processed this old photo. So much better now using DXO Pure RAW and Topaz filters  

AFTER







BEFORE






Episode 2 of "The Bird Photography Show" is now available to watch. In this episode Jan shares an image from a recent outback road trip, we discuss cRAW vs RAW and talk all about artificial intelligence in post processing.

I hope you enjoy the episode!


----------



## Click (Jul 17, 2021)

Excellent result. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2021)

Every 3 or 4 years, there seems to be a newer generation of software that has a slight but noticeable improvement. When reprocessing a 15 year old image, I've found enough improvement to make the image look considerably better but I have to start over and reprocess it. Unfortunately, I did not start using RAW with my first DSLR back in 2000. It wasn't until 2005 that most of my photos used RAW. Those were processed using Lightroom and the version 3 engine. I picked two at random which happened to use ISO 3200. That was difficult for a old 5D to handle. NR pretty much wiped out fine detail. Where I could, I used the slider for blacks slid to the left so noise was hidden by the blacks. That works for a dark background. I then used moderate NR. With current DSLR's, ISO 3200 is not a big deal but its far from perfect.

With those particular ISO 3200 shots, I did not notice any difference moving from process version 3 to version 5. I expected a difference. The NR likely destroyed any details that improved.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 17, 2021)

A beautiful little bird.
Great picture!


----------



## Glenn Bartley (Jul 17, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Every 3 or 4 years, there seems to be a newer generation of software that has a slight but noticeable improvement. When reprocessing a 15 year old image, I've found enough improvement to make the image look considerably better but I have to start over and reprocess it. Unfortunately, I did not start using RAW with my first DSLR back in 2000. It wasn't until 2005 that most of my photos used RAW. Those were processed using Lightroom and the version 3 engine. I picked two at random which happened to use ISO 3200. That was difficult for a old 5D to handle. NR pretty much wiped out fine detail. Where I could, I used the slider for blacks slid to the left so noise was hidden by the blacks. That works for a dark background. I then used moderate NR. With current DSLR's, ISO 3200 is not a big deal but its far from perfect.
> 
> With those particular ISO 3200 shots, I did not notice any difference moving from process version 3 to version 5. I expected a difference. The NR likely destroyed any details that improved.


You should give DXO Pure Raw a try!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 17, 2021)

Glenn Bartley said:


> You should give DXO Pure Raw a try!


Better still, use DxO PL 4 as your RAW converter. Lots of us here do now. It has the noise reduction plus more control over sharpness.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 19, 2021)

The bird looks a lot better in the new version, but the bokeh is a little worse due to posterization.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 22, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> The bird looks a lot better in the new version, but the bokeh is a little worse due to posterization.


I am not sure it is posterisation - from my experience with the Pure Raw it seems to be the software recognising small areas of what it thinks is detail, 'clarifying' that and ignoring everything around it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Better still, use DxO PL 4 as your RAW converter. Lots of us here do now. It has the noise reduction plus more control over sharpness.


I've used it, but I was editing 2000 photos at a go, and my life is not long enough to do that with DXO. Its great for a few photos.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 23, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> I am not sure it is posterisation - from my experience with the Pure Raw it seems to be the software recognising small areas of what it thinks is detail, 'clarifying' that and ignoring everything around it.


I don't think the software intentionally quantized the colors, but suspect its a bordering on the color space having too few greens to create a graduated change without "noisy" dithering. Personally, I like the after bird (a lot better) and noisy background (slightly better).


----------

