[normhead]

I've never got the hang of this PP thing.

When I used photoshop, I found 90% of the time I just needed to use the "auto enhance" function to get the best results. You can use it even on your straight off the camera jpegs. You just need a program with a good "enhance" feature to get you going, You can learn more control at times when you have difficulties with a shot. The enhance feature should give you as good images as your SOTC images give you. But that's the downside. You have to develop a bit of proficiency before your images are better than as straight off the camera, so initially it can seem like a waste of time.

In my old PP computer lab it would only take me a few classes to get you up and running.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-08-2018 at 09:00 AM.

[timb64]

Here's some Scotland shots, Carol.
They're all straight out of camera, I've never got the hang of this PP thing.

The thing with PP is not to look at it as a thing in itself but a means to correcting shortcomings in your pictures.
If you're 100% happy with everything straight out of the camera all well and good.Personally if you shoot RAW I would look at your second picture and think,hmm I could recover some of those blown out highlights and how much of the detail can be pulled out of the shadows?
The other two major benefits I find from PP is cropping and straightening horizons.(yeah,I know mostly stuff which can be done in camera at the time but doesn't always happen!)

[csa]

Bdery, that starburst is awesome, that really sells me on the 21!

[eminker]

I'm not nearly as good as most people here at landscapes, and I certainly don't shoot as much as I would like. But I seem to "click" with the DA 16-45mm f4. A boring choice, I know, a cheap lens from the early days of APS-C (released back when the *istD was the only Pentax DSLR in existence...)

Thank you and love those first two photos!
I feel the same way about my old DA 16-45mm F4. Its always accompanies me on road trips. For extended reach, I go to my 50-135mm F2.8 or 60-250mm F4 when needed.

[ChristianRock]

Here's some Scotland shots, Carol.
They're all straight out of camera, I've never got the hang of this PP thing.

For SOOC, these are great pictures. I find that the Pentax JPEG engine isn't nearly as bad as people say. Especially when you use good lenses.

But I suggest you play around with Darktable. It's free and it has a great RAW engine (demosaicing algorithm or whatever it is that makes a good RAW engine). When you load a RAW file, it usually applies a "base curve" and I find that this is usually enough to make the picture look as good as the Pentax JPEG. Then just by adding some default sharpening and dehazing and perhaps vibrance, you'll be ahead of the game.

There is a site called dtstyle.net (which for some reason is down at the moment) that has some good styles to get you started, including one called 01_NWAL_Basic_Settings which does what I just mentioned and adds some local contrast as well, and the highlights module. I find that if all I did was open the RAW file and applied this preset, I'd be ahead of the Pentax JPEG engine already. Then open the BrightnessContrastSaturation module and adjust to taste if needed. Of course there's a whole lot more that can be done to a file but that's really how easy it is to start doing PP on RAW files. I suggest you try it and if you do come back to our Darktable Users Coterie thread to hang out with the Darktable users in this forum

Having said that, the first images that I posted, from the DA 16-45, were done in RawTherapee, another very capable free program, but one that requires a bit more digging in, it's also very powerful but not as easy to use. I tend to favor Darktable these days because it has things other free programs that I have used in the past don't have - like the ability to quickly and easily remove sensor dust/adjust blemishes, and it also creates layers.

Carol, sorry for being off-topic! I hope it was helpful.

[csa]

Carol, sorry for being off-topic! I hope it was helpful.

Not a problem! This is good information for all of us the get the best out of our lenses, and photos!

[ThorSanchez]

Having said that, the first images that I posted, from the DA 16-45, were done in RawTherapee, another very capable free program, but one that requires a bit more digging in, it's also very powerful but not as easy to use. I tend to favor Darktable these days because it has things other free programs that I have used in the past don't have - like the ability to quickly and easily remove sensor dust/adjust blemishes, and it also creates layers.

My experience in looking for a Lightoom replacement was the opposite - RawTherapee was more intuitive and easier to get good results (espeically at higher ISOs) than Darktable. Although, as you mention, spot removal is a thing in Darktable but not RT.

[bdery]

Bdery, that starburst is awesome, that really sells me on the 21!

I can give you more if you want

Here's one of my favourites, not the most spectacular composition, but every little light on the tree is showing beautiful stars (best seen in larger size, just click on it):



This one's pretty nice too:

[csa]

Really nice!! Yep, the 21 will be my next lens!

[k1man]

Here's some Scotland shots, Carol.
They're all straight out of camera, I've never got the hang of this PP thing.

This is Castle Stalker, in Appin:


Here's a shot in Fort Augustus:


And Glencoe, which could have benefited being shot with a 15, I took some shots to stitch together, but haven't got around to that yet:



I've also got a bunch from up in Caithness, and then some panorama's I can stitch and upload if you're interested to see that aspect with the 21.

you are not alone all my pics are straigh out of camera

[pres589]

DA 15 Ltd. SMC on my crop digital kit.
Tamron 17 SP on my film camera. Still wanting to find an M 20 f4 that is priced nicer than what I keep finding.

[tokyoscape]

I've been thinking that same thing , "should Have gone for the 15 instead of the 21?" for 8 years now. I'm not sure you ever stop wondering that. I thought long and hard about both options, the 21 came up used so I went with the 21.

I have both. I went for 15 first and get a FA20. Then 21 after that. 15 is more for special shot. 21 is for everyday shooting. If 21 is not wide enough, I usually stitche 2-3 images together.

[Des]

I do wish Pentax would offer the DA limiteds in WR.

That's one of the things going for the DA 20-40. And while it's not pancake size it is still quite compact and lightweight, has beautiful build quality and image quality worthy of the Limited moniker. It's not cheap, but cheaper than getting two of the Limited primes.

No starbursts though.

If 21 is not wide enough, I usually stitche 2-3 images together.

Stitching is a great option provided there's no moving water or other fast moving subjects in the scene (I find it impossible to get a sea image where the joins aren't visible). For anyone new to this who wants to explore it further, have a look at the pano thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/7...our-panos.html

[mikesbike]

Has anyone brought this up- that the current HD version of the DA 21mm has rounded blades for better bokeh and updated coatings, but reported to be not as good for the starburst effect as the original version? I've had mine for years- the original.

[bdery]

Has anyone brought this up- that the current HD version of the DA 21mm has rounded blades for better bokeh and updated coatings, but reported to be not as good for the starburst effect as the original version? I've had mine for years- the original.

Correct. In my opinion, the SMC is the most desirable of the two.

With Pentax's understanding and knowledge about special lenses (just look at the three FA Limited, and even the DA Limited in their own way) I don't see how they did not present the starbursts as a feature of the 15 and 21. With the HD version, they crippled these lenses.