Is there any reason for NOT using DeepPrime by default for all RAW images?
Good question. If most of my images are around 100 ISO or so with little visible nose is DeepPrime even needed?
The only real penalty for using DeepPRIME is the extra time it takes to export files.
If you are only shooting at low ISO, or you are not having to pull shadow detail, there really is no point.
Even in low iso images you can get underexposed section’s.
Deep shadows which you raise, large planes of color like sky.
It’s a AI so it’s designed to tiptow around the clear noisefree sections and not touch the details.
I would say shoot/look for high dynamic images at base iso lift shadow. And run Deepprime over those.
I think your suprised.
This is heavily lifted base iso because of the high lite roof and sky.
Shadow boost shows detail;
So it’s there but how damaged?
200% street shows colornoise.(underexposure damage)
The jpeg comparison:
Street bricks and flat can
The place i pointed AF on.
should be sharp.
Look at the wall.
original images for deeper analysis:
deepprime_prime_HQ.7z (15,2 MB)
A well exposed image. (who can translate the text may keep the image’s )
original images base iso well exposed.7z (10,8 MB)
I won’t tell you what to do but i know what i will do…
There’s also noise you don’t see. In theory any photo has some level of noise.
I had one example where PRIME did a decent job of cleaning up just a little noise and I was perfectly happy with the result. For comparison purposes I switched to DeepPRIME and noticed that while the apparent “noise problem” was no different (it looked clean), the definition of fine details improved. Particularly lines of high contrast generally look smoother and better defined than with PRIME.
I’ ve been thinking about that too. For the moment I’ll use it for all files from iso800 and up. But, I might change that (even using it for lower iso files). Shooting with Sony A7RIV
No point…but would it harm those files. That’ s what I’ m going to find out.