Finished JPEG's missing David?

Nice idea FAT8BIKER, why didn't I think of that? oh wait, maybe it was all those shoots of dancers in filthy dark nightclubs using ambient light and still keeping them looking fabulous. Yes that was it

Of course. There's always time for a bit of individual TLC. But I'm just talking about getting event photographs out to the clients before the hordes of camera phone shots arrive, and without spending the whole of the next day editing.
If a client or I want a specific shot for print or something, then I'll be employing every trick in the book and treating every part of the image individually. I was hoping Topaz could speed up part of that, but I think I would spend the next hour trying to un-smear everything without leaving tell-tale grainy borders around objects.
Lightroom just looks after the details and leaves a more honest image. Not all noise is bad; as long as it isn't smudged, or containing a load of made-up colours, I'm usually happy to leave it and maybe enjoy an image that actually looks like it was shot in difficult conditions.
I notice Topaz has an add noise option, so it's not lost on them that the image can look a bit plastic.

Looks like a piece of grit got lodged in there.
Any sample images? Moon shot?
How old is this one? I'm not really up on the model numbers.

That sounds ideal.

Nigel, Thanks for the tips on settings, I'll try it just to satisfy my curiosity. But I don't need any more excuses to fiddle with images in Photoshop Anything that automates and take me out of the process is a god send. I already need to get a life

Maybe not the time to ask, but I keep revisiting the question of 500mm lenses. Which of the3(?) big Sigmas is actually the best?
50-500
150-500
170-500 (apparently not?)

Sorry Tom, I haven't got one

I loved the dark one and didn't mind the large expanse of black as the image sat comfortably on it and the eye was lead out to the last chimney and sun. Fab!
Then the light one arrived and I loved that too. I wanted to extend that detail to illustrative amounts, with corresponding attention to the sky.
It's just a cracking shot that I would be playing with for hours
I think they all work.

I'll keep playing Nigel, time allowing. Maybe I was a bit heavy-handed with the settings.
I have a bit of a mantra with new software - don't slag it off till you know what you're talking about! This thread is in response to the very tempting special offer on the software, so I thought I would start a discussion with my first findings with the trial.
I'll eventually give it a fair shot and maybe change my tune.
I'm certainly open to discovering that it's actually awesome, but on speed alone it's looking like I'll probably pass.

Peter, I think you would have fun messing about in a 'proper' RAW editor. It's possible your picture couldn't be 'fixed' but other images would show a big difference. The k10D has less leeway (like positive film) but it would still be interesting to have a play with some software a little more powerful. Maybe when you get your shiny new machine

Smeggy, your semantics are completely unhelpful here and meaningless in almost all branches of discussion.

Yes, I fiddled with all those. The default colour noise reduction was already petty strong in Topaz, and more didn't help.
I've given it a fair shot now and all the Topaz images have that old-fashioned smudgy noise look. Instead of just nice grain.