why don't people like K10D JPEGs

Lowell Goudge · 01-09-2009, 03:05 PM

I see lot's of complaints about JPEG quality from the K10D

this is a crop out of a JPEG right out of the camera.

Personally I think the quality is pretty good

jeffkrol · 01-09-2009, 05:59 PM

Sorry to say that this topic has really been discussed to death. Most of the criticism has been due to the visual effect of "dark side sharpening" creating softer looking edges. Also default sharpening is low. For one of the thousand threads see this:
Re: PENTAX you idiots....fix theK10D sharpness issue in jpg NOW: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

SpecialK · 01-09-2009, 09:25 PM

Normally the complaint is "I don't like the default in-camera JPG - even though I can easily change camera settings to make it how I like it."

Even some "pro" reviews said this.

**Damn Brit** · 01-10-2009, 12:35 AM

No complaints from me, I only shoot Jpeg.

Class A · 01-10-2009, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

I see lot's of complaints about JPEG quality from the K10D

They are a bit soft with the default settings.

At Unices.org Blog Archive Pentax K10d, how to make jpg files ? you can compare crops of JPEG vs various RAW engines. You'll notice that the K10D JPEG version is not the one with the most detail.

Mechan1k · 01-10-2009, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Damn Brit

No complaints from me, I only shoot Jpeg.

Pretty much the same here ... and 99% of my pisc I post/upload haven't had any PP done to them at all ... I could do some ... but I am usually lazy or just don't have the time .. so i just post them as well.

No issues here really.

Only options I have chosen on my K10D is Bright Mode and +1 Saturation from memory.

Bart · 01-10-2009, 06:53 AM

It's easy enough to do: you get your JPG and your RAW.
Convert the RAW with something like DxO, Silkypix, ACR or Lightroom and compare the two JPG's.
Then you'll know whether you prefere RAW or JPG.

roverlr3 · 01-10-2009, 10:24 AM

I am very satisfied with My Jpegs from the k10. I always thought the pics were good enough for me. I have been shooting only in raw since I got my K20, and your post has motivated me to go out today and play with the custom image mode in the jpeg format.
Thanks for the inspiration
Jeff

roverlr3 · 01-10-2009, 10:40 AM

Just a street shot of bldg. 6th St. downtown Austin, K10, 50-135 2.8, iso 400, f3.5
Sorry for the 2nd reply thought it would be nice to give an example.

SpecialK · 01-10-2009, 12:03 PM

Only options I have chosen on my K10D is Bright Mode and +1 Saturation from memory.

This is one fix for "flat" jpgs. Bright mode increases saturation, and then adding extra saturation makes it even more...colorful. It also made some colors glow like neon on my K100D :-)

jeffkrol · 01-10-2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by roverlr3

Just a street shot of bldg. 6th St. downtown Austin, K10, 50-135 2.8, iso 400, f3.5
Sorry for the 2nd reply thought it would be nice to give an example.

I've rarely seen a digital image that doen't need some pp sharpening especially if printing.
Out of Gamut: (Almost) Everything You Wanted to Know about Sharpening in Photoshop but Were Afraid to Ask | CreativePro.com

GeneV · 01-12-2009, 03:10 PM

Once you have used PS on Raw files, it's hard to go back to camera jpegs.

*rayallen* · 01-13-2009, 12:58 AM

After shooting RAW exclusively for a long time, a month or two back I decided to start an experiment - I set my K10D to RAW + JPEG. For most of the shots I have taken since then I have preferred the JPEG output.

Like Simon (Mechan1K) I find that most shots required no PP. Only occasionally was PP needed to make minor improvements.

I have Saturation and Sharpness set to +1, Contrast set to 0.

Just my 2 cents worth. YMMV.

Lowell Goudge · 01-13-2009, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by GeneV

Once you have used PS on Raw files, it's hard to go back to camera jpegs.

perhaps

but if I don't need to use PS why should I. I think that is the point here. I appreciate that you can do a lot with a photo editor, but if you take the time to know your camera, (at least as much time as you spent learning PS for example) you can adjust it to do everything you need.

WheresWaldo · 01-13-2009, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

perhaps

but if I don't need to use PS why should I. I think that is the point here. I appreciate that you can do a lot with a photo editor, but if you take the time to know your camera, (at least as much time as you spent learning PS for example) you can adjust it to do everything you need.

In a very narrow world this may be true. Let's go back to the analogy of RAW and JPG being similar to Negative film and print. Using JPG only is like telling the local Costco girl just give me the prints and throw away those pesky negatives.

You say that you hardly ever post process, That is great if your intended output is one device and only one device. What if one of your precious relatives says "remember that picture you took of you-know-who, I would love to have that as an 8x10." So now you go back to your JPG and for a print you need to enlarge then sharpen your image. In every world I live in (and some think it's more than one, or maybe that's just in my head

) using a RAW file would be much better than any JPG.

I think the real point here is, not that your workflow is more or less, or even knowing your camera, it is the ability to smartly archive and preserve the moment you are trying to capture with the most fidelity possible. This is the only way you can then manipulate the image properly to adjust it to any version of the reality your memory allows, at any point in the future.