It's very very normal to batch process a load of event shots (for instance) and work selectively on a couple of choices ones, but even then, I haven't found a satisfactory answer to dealing with noise after it's been converted. I gave Topaz a fair shot and it just looked old-school over-processed.
In any case, for the purpose of this thread and RAW convertors, it may be more useful to know which ones fair best at the RAW stage.

Ah yes, that's a good point, although ACR and Lightroom can apply noise control selectively and crucially, work on multiple files in a batch.
If you do leave it until PS and are happy to labouriously work on each file individually (often not possible commercially), then you still have the problem of getting a realistic transition from clean to noisy.
I still think an overall sensitive cleanup at RAW stage, retaining detail and accepting some honest grainyness is preferable, certainly for me.

This I've got to see.
I've just downloaded DXO as a lot of my work is in the dark.
I found Topaz to just smear the noise all over the picture. My gut feeling is that once noise has got as far as Photoshop, it's too late; much better too deal with it at source (this could well be nonsense )

My go-to page on this site is 'Recent Activity', so I often miss stuff!
It's a cracking set of test shots. Colour in particular stands out. Sharpness at this size is difficult to establish, but the general quality is stunning.
I have the TC and 100 and 300 and this has inspired me to have another walk around with the 100. I couldn't see much point in using it with the macro as it definitely reduces the IQ, but there may be other advantages especially with shy stuff...
I posted a moon comparison and got no replies; essentially, in my quick test, the improvement was negligible. The extra pixels of the K3 would be a better solution for going bigger I think.

Took the plunge when the price dropped dramatically.
Here a quick and dirty moon shot comparison with my usual workflow (click it to go large).
The straight 300mm shot needed almost nothing done to it. The converted shot was significantly softer and didn't respond well to my usual processing.
In this scenario, the up-sampled 300 shot was at least as nice I think. Which is astonishing really.
I'll upload the raws 'dreckly'.

Nigel, IMO you are obsessing with technicalities and missing the point of my argument. The fact that you think pulling up shadows is so bad, suggests to me that your software is not everything you think it is. It may be easy or intuitive but that means nothing if it makes sweeping assumptions about what a user wants (Microsoft style) in order to make it easy.
BTW, I'm not promoting Adobe; I think they are a faceless corporation a getting a lot wrong nowadays. I was just using their latest improvements as an example of how software can make a difference.
Actually I find the positive comments a bit bemusing and verging on sycophantic [Mark ducks]. I guess it's because it's your family. I already said it was a charming shot (or words to that effect).
I would get someone who doesn't know you, or that they are your girls, to comment on it

Eh? It was the flash that caused the blown highlights and the consequent odd halos around the leaves.
My philosophy: Just don't use it; it looks false; it didn't need it.
One advantage of BW, is you can pull up the shadows much more aggressively because the grain is actually very pleasant.
I don't really know the software you talk of, but I suspect a high-end RAW developer would help. The latest Adobe RAW is much better than the old version for recovering detail without making it look all HDRish. So if it took Adobe until recently to get that aspect right, goodness knows what other software could be doing to images without people realising what they're missing? Just a thought.

If we disregard the cute and funny subjects, I'm left thinking it doesn't work at all.
It looks false and flat. The background is irretrievably ruined by the lack of high speed sync. In this situation the on-board flash cannot cope; if you use no flash (next time) even the K7 would be capable of digging out shadow detail in the foreground to enable a good exposure on the sky.
Alternatively, let the background burn out unashamedly, even lift it further for a more illustrative bleached-out effect.

My first SLR 1983 (Dad's Yashica from the 70s) Pentax from then on.

Good effort. I always give up after 10 minutes pfaffing about even with a free model!
Looks like you mirrored the image in Photoshop, but you didn't. Great avatar material.