k100d jpeg

jdg · 11-17-2008, 10:41 PM

Are you guy's happy with the jpeg quality the k100d produces or do you still post process the images? i always tweak the levels and apply a little unsharpmask to my images just to make it a little better co'z they look dull out of the camera or maybe it's my fault i'm still a newbie at using a dslr and also at photography.

sample images:

original photo out of the cam

post processed

dws1117 · 11-18-2008, 08:22 AM

I used to have the k100 but upgraded to the k200 earlier in the year and I've been satisfied for the most part with jpg quality out of the camera. I'll do minimal post processing.

That said my photos are basically snapshots. There is no money being made through my camera and since my photography isn't there to put food on the table I don't want to spend a lot of time jacking with tons of photos. It's for this reason that I don't shoot in RAW.

On the rare occasions that I'll do a family portrait (such as a family portrait for Christmas cards for my sister in law) or portraits of neighbor's kids then I'll shoot RAW and spend more time in PP. For my own family and daily snapshots JPG from the camera is more than fine. Only you know what will satisfy you.

dws1117 · 11-18-2008, 08:29 AM

Hope you don't mind, but I did a small touch up with you pic, For my taste I would crop out most of the left side as those elements are distracting and bring the focus to the two larger flowers. There is also a touch of brightening. I am far from an expert expert and I'm sure others will be able to give better advice.

*lunelson* · 11-18-2008, 09:53 AM

I'm always a fan of post-processing. In the example you posted, though, it looks like the photo was somewhat underexposed, so you can't really blame the JPEG output as much as the exposure being off.

Jester_rm · 11-18-2008, 09:54 AM

I guess it depends on what the photos going to be used for. I don't shoot much jpg anymore...was OK with them mostly when I was doing it (usually did some sort of tweaking since I'm still learning quite a bit), but I've gotten pretty used to PP the raw files now, and adjusting them is much easier.

Alfisti · 11-18-2008, 09:56 AM

Try shooting RAW, batch convert to Tiff using PPL with -1 contrast, -1 saturation and no sharpening (-3).

Open in favourite software. You now have a really great baseline to work with without having a file that is already sharpened and saved.

audiobomber · 11-18-2008, 11:56 AM

I assume the lens is the 18-55mm? My copy underexposes like this.

**Marc Sabatella** · 11-18-2008, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by audiobomber

I assume the lens is the 18-55mm? My copy underexposes like this.

This shot is *not* really underexposed in the technical sense - it averages out to a little darker than an 18% gray card, exactly as it should. However, it is a good example of a scene for which positive compensation would indeed be likely to yield a more aesthetically pleasing picture in most people's subjective opinion.

I'd personally have pushed the exposure half a stop in the camera, which may actually have clipped some highlights, but only barely. Then I'd have gone in and recovered the highlights if necessary in PP (I shoot RAW, so this would be possible - not so much so with JPEG). Then I'd look to see if I needed to tweak the curves to improve contrast. I do this quite a bit, but to my eye, the OP went a little too far.

In any case, assuming the the exact exposure and curves produced by the camera are the best possible results is foolish. Use out-of-camera JPEG if you like for the sake of convenience, but they'll *never* be optimal on any camera, because this stuff is just far too subjective.

rfortson · 11-18-2008, 02:19 PM

How do you have your settings in camera? I like a "well saturated" shot, so I bumped up my saturation, contrast and sharpness a touch as my default and liked the result. Play with your settings and see what you like. That's why they're there. Only you know what you like.

jdg · 11-19-2008, 03:22 AM

My camera is set to contrast = hard, saturation = high saturation, sharpness = hard.

audiobomber · 11-19-2008, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by jdg

My camera is set to contrast = hard, saturation = high saturation, sharpness = hard.

Natural or bright? What's the lens? Do you have another lens to compare with?

SpecialK · 11-19-2008, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by dws1117

I don't want to spend a lot of time jacking with tons of photos. It's for this reason that I don't shoot in RAW.

You can convert RAW to jpg in a batch. Come back from dinner and it's done. If you want it even quicker, "Extract a Jpg" in Photo Browser (not Photo Lab). Make a cup of coffee and it's done :-) Open the ones that need more adjustments...

Even if you only "do" minimal processing with RAWs, an advantage is that there is a small file (filename.XMP) that is (or can be) saved that has the RAW processing parameters. You can rename these and create a series of different processes for the same image.

It is hard to "go back" with a jpg....