K5 LCD question

illdefined · 04-04-2011, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

why don't you try it and confirm it for us?

wasn't doubting you, just know there are people on this forum with calibrated monitors and a ton of past experience and wondered if its already been discussed here thoroughly. if you are one of them, then by all means, please tell us how you reached your conclusion

skyoftexas · 04-04-2011, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

What you don't seem to know is that the histogram will be much more useful to you than any review screen adjustment.

I guess the only way I could be sure of what you are saying would be to shoot with you and compare notes. I don't discount that the histogram has value, but I think its value really is to make sure you aren't clipping the high lights. Otherwise, I don't think you can look only at a histogram, and predict the quality of picture you will get. There are too many situations when the histogram of a very successful picture will be crowded on one end of the spectrum or the other. Shooting in a dark room is one of those situations. Shooting into the sun is another. If one only accepted photos with a nice, spike in the middle of the histogram, a lot of interesting photographs would be overlooked. To support my uncredited opinion, I will refer to page 190 in Scott Kelby's book, The Digital Photography Book, Vol. 2, in which points out the limitations of histograms and concludes: "–so don't get hung up on histograms---"

Originally posted by Wheatfield

What is even better is to learn how to expose so that you aren't checking the screen all the time.

Getting correct exposure is not that difficult. But blending flash into your photo is. If you slap a flash gun on your camera, set it to TLL or even Automatic, and point it at the subject, you will probably get a correctly exposed photo. Washed out, and not very interesting, but correctly exposed. But if you want to see the background behind your subject, and try aiming the flash behind you or bouncing off of something, you need a visual confirmation to see if your flash setting is correct. A histogram might be of some use, but I still believe that visual confirmation is necessary. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected.

Wheatfield · 04-04-2011, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by illdefined

I was under the impression the histogram (and the blinkies) ONLY represents the JPEG, and NOT the RAW.

what would be the most helpful would be to find the Jpeg and LCD settings that most accurately represent the RAW exposure. I have my JPEG settings set to minimum contrast for example, to better represent the K-5's high DR.

Yes well, it's the best we have, isn't it? I've found so far that if the histogram looks good, I will be able to pull a good image off the file. What the extra range of the raw file does is allow for a little wiggle room if the range of the scene is on the long side.

Wheatfield · 04-04-2011, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

I guess the only way I could be sure of what you are saying would be to shoot with you and compare notes. I don't discount that the histogram has value, but I think its value really is to make sure you aren't clipping the high lights. Otherwise, I don't think you can look only at a histogram, and predict the quality of picture you will get. There are too many situations when the histogram of a very successful picture will be crowded on one end of the spectrum or the other. Shooting in a dark room is one of those situations. Shooting into the sun is another. If one only accepted photos with a nice, spike in the middle of the histogram, a lot of interesting photographs would be overlooked. To support my uncredited opinion, I will refer to page 190 in Scott Kelby's book, The Digital Photography Book, Vol. 2, in which points out the limitations of histograms and concludes: "–so don't get hung up on histograms---"

Getting correct exposure is not that difficult. But blending flash into your photo is. If you slap a flash gun on your camera, set it to TLL or even Automatic, and point it at the subject, you will probably get a correctly exposed photo. Washed out, and not very interesting, but correctly exposed. But if you want to see the background behind your subject, and try aiming the flash behind you or bouncing off of something, you need a visual confirmation to see if your flash setting is correct. A histogram might be of some use, but I still believe that visual confirmation is necessary. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected.

Kelby is right that we get too hung up on histograms. I give the histogram a quick look, and as long as it looks right compared to the scene, I don't get too bent out of shape.
Most of the time, as long as you aren't too stacked up at either one side or the other, then you will have a good exposure.
The obvious exceptions are either high hey or low key where the histogram will be very much on one side or the other.
So, the histogram is important, but it has to be viewed in relation to the scene in question (but not necessarily the review screen.)
Flash exposure is the one place where the histogram doesn't tell you enough since, as you have surmised, it is possible to have a glorious histogram and a totally wrong fill exposure.
Again, experience pays dividends, and in my case, a total lack of ability to run anything more complicated than a simple auto flash has saved me more than once.
I don't use a TTL (or pTTL) flash.
I just use a simple but very powerful auto flash, and I set everything manually.
I don't like to leave that sort of thing to chance, or technology.
I set my own aperture and shutter speed, and then I set the fill ratio by biasing the flash to either a higher or lower aperture number to give more or less flash output.
I suppose I should try to figure out how to run my 540 flash sometime, Lord knows I paid enough for the thing and it has only been used once to make sure it worked at all, but even then, I set it on auto, chose an aperture and used it that way rather than on TTL.

WerTicus · 04-05-2011, 12:50 AM

histogram and bright dark flashy thing is essential i think. I have my LCD brightness up so i can use it in day light - I also have a matt protector screen to reduce reflections.

skyoftexas · 04-05-2011, 06:26 AM

Thanks everyone for being involved, but simico has given me the answer in another post:

"If the histogram on the K-5 LCD looks ok, but you get a 1 stop underexposed image in your raw converter then you have D-Range turned ON and your raw converter doesn't know / support that feature. With D-Range turned ON the cam takes the shot 1EV underexposed and then pushes it for JPG if you shoot JPG or PDCU pushes it for your raw files by less then 1EV to preserve highlights."

I had the D-Range on. I knew there had to be an explanation. I turned on the D-Range because DP had strongly recommended it, and I thought I had read it would benefit shooting in raw as well. I feel much better now.

skyoftexas · 04-05-2011, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I set my own aperture and shutter speed, and then I set the fill ratio by biasing the flash to either a higher or lower aperture number to give more or less flash output.

Do you find using the aperture setting on the flash works the same as the EV adjustment on the flash?

Wheatfield · 04-05-2011, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

Do you find using the aperture setting on the flash works the same as the EV adjustment on the flash?

Don't know. All I have on my flash is aperture adjustment for power output adjust. I expect that it would work more or less the same though, in that you are setting the flash to give more or less output compared to what would be considered normal.

For example, I am shooting a wedding party outdoors, with a shutter speed of 1/125th at f/5.6.
If I want a little less fill light, I set the flash to f/4, if I want a bit more fill, I set the flash to f/8.
This would, I expect, correspond to setting either +1 or -1 EV adjust.
If I need finer resolution, I adjust the aperture closer to the aperture of the flash and compensate with the shutter speed.
I expect that it would be easier to do this with a dedicated flash, but I don't really like shoe mount flash units, and the way I do it is the same as I've been doing it for the past few decades, so it is second nature for me to make these adjustments, and I just do it without thinking.

illdefined · 04-05-2011, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

Thanks everyone for being involved, but simico has given me the answer in another post:

"If the histogram on the K-5 LCD looks ok, but you get a 1 stop underexposed image in your raw converter then you have D-Range turned ON and your raw converter doesn't know / support that feature. With D-Range turned ON the cam takes the shot 1EV underexposed and then pushes it for JPG if you shoot JPG or PDCU pushes it for your raw files by less then 1EV to preserve highlights."

I had the D-Range on. I knew there had to be an explanation. I turned on the D-Range because DP had strongly recommended it, and I thought I had read it would benefit shooting in raw as well. I feel much better now.

which converter were you using? is D-Range supported by Lightroom3?

skyoftexas · 04-05-2011, 06:21 PM

I'm using Adobe CS4 Photoshop. I just got CS5, but I don't know if that will have any effect yet. I can't answer the Lightroom question.

skyoftexas · 04-05-2011, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

but I don't really like shoe mount flash units,

So what type of flash unit are you using?

Wheatfield · 04-05-2011, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

So what type of flash unit are you using?

A really old Metz 60 CT-2, which is a handle mount flash. It tested within a tenth of a stop when I measured it with a flash meter, and it has proven itself to be a very robust and reliable flash.
However, it doesn't talk to the digital cameras at all, so I just continue to use the PC socket that Pentax so thoughtfully provides. I'm probably one of about 6 people worldwide that appreciates that Pentax is just about the only manufacturer that still puts a PC socket onto their cameras.

Also, I'm glad you got a solid answer about your dark screen problem, it kinda had me a bit baffled. I'm pretty sure Adobe doesn't play nice with the D-Range correction, and so is just seeing the raw file as a stop underexposed.
Knowing this, you could easily write a profile (Adobe calls it a preset) to boost the density a stop and apply it during import as required.

04-05-2011, 06:26 AM	#21
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156 Original Poster	I have the answer! Thanks everyone for being involved, but simico has given me the answer in another post: "If the histogram on the K-5 LCD looks ok, but you get a 1 stop underexposed image in your raw converter then you have D-Range turned ON and your raw converter doesn't know / support that feature. With D-Range turned ON the cam takes the shot 1EV underexposed and then pushes it for JPG if you shoot JPG or PDCU pushes it for your raw files by less then 1EV to preserve highlights." I had the D-Range on. I knew there had to be an explanation. I turned on the D-Range because DP had strongly recommended it, and I thought I had read it would benefit shooting in raw as well. I feel much better now.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SLR Newbie question about composing with the LCD Monitor	JackStands	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	08-30-2010 12:54 PM
k10d LCD screen question	gsr9987	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	08-08-2010 06:47 AM
Pentax K-7 LCD picture review screen question	pkoz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	11-06-2009 04:19 PM
Question: How can I use LCD as Viewfinder?	AMBIVALENCE	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	05-27-2009 10:57 AM
Question re: K10d LCD	MSM	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	04-29-2009 07:11 PM

04-04-2011, 04:43 PM	#16
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by enoeske why don't you try it and confirm it for us? wasn't doubting you, just know there are people on this forum with calibrated monitors and a ton of past experience and wondered if its already been discussed here thoroughly. if you are one of them, then by all means, please tell us how you reached your conclusion

04-04-2011, 05:37 PM	#17
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield What you don't seem to know is that the histogram will be much more useful to you than any review screen adjustment. I guess the only way I could be sure of what you are saying would be to shoot with you and compare notes. I don't discount that the histogram has value, but I think its value really is to make sure you aren't clipping the high lights. Otherwise, I don't think you can look only at a histogram, and predict the quality of picture you will get. There are too many situations when the histogram of a very successful picture will be crowded on one end of the spectrum or the other. Shooting in a dark room is one of those situations. Shooting into the sun is another. If one only accepted photos with a nice, spike in the middle of the histogram, a lot of interesting photographs would be overlooked. To support my uncredited opinion, I will refer to page 190 in Scott Kelby's book, The Digital Photography Book, Vol. 2, in which points out the limitations of histograms and concludes: "–so don't get hung up on histograms---" Originally posted by Wheatfield What is even better is to learn how to expose so that you aren't checking the screen all the time. Getting correct exposure is not that difficult. But blending flash into your photo is. If you slap a flash gun on your camera, set it to TLL or even Automatic, and point it at the subject, you will probably get a correctly exposed photo. Washed out, and not very interesting, but correctly exposed. But if you want to see the background behind your subject, and try aiming the flash behind you or bouncing off of something, you need a visual confirmation to see if your flash setting is correct. A histogram might be of some use, but I still believe that visual confirmation is necessary. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected.

04-04-2011, 10:09 PM	#18
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by illdefined I was under the impression the histogram (and the blinkies) ONLY represents the JPEG, and NOT the RAW. what would be the most helpful would be to find the Jpeg and LCD settings that most accurately represent the RAW exposure. I have my JPEG settings set to minimum contrast for example, to better represent the K-5's high DR. Yes well, it's the best we have, isn't it? I've found so far that if the histogram looks good, I will be able to pull a good image off the file. What the extra range of the raw file does is allow for a little wiggle room if the range of the scene is on the long side.

04-04-2011, 10:20 PM	#19
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by skyoftexas I guess the only way I could be sure of what you are saying would be to shoot with you and compare notes. I don't discount that the histogram has value, but I think its value really is to make sure you aren't clipping the high lights. Otherwise, I don't think you can look only at a histogram, and predict the quality of picture you will get. There are too many situations when the histogram of a very successful picture will be crowded on one end of the spectrum or the other. Shooting in a dark room is one of those situations. Shooting into the sun is another. If one only accepted photos with a nice, spike in the middle of the histogram, a lot of interesting photographs would be overlooked. To support my uncredited opinion, I will refer to page 190 in Scott Kelby's book, The Digital Photography Book, Vol. 2, in which points out the limitations of histograms and concludes: "–so don't get hung up on histograms---" Getting correct exposure is not that difficult. But blending flash into your photo is. If you slap a flash gun on your camera, set it to TLL or even Automatic, and point it at the subject, you will probably get a correctly exposed photo. Washed out, and not very interesting, but correctly exposed. But if you want to see the background behind your subject, and try aiming the flash behind you or bouncing off of something, you need a visual confirmation to see if your flash setting is correct. A histogram might be of some use, but I still believe that visual confirmation is necessary. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected. Kelby is right that we get too hung up on histograms. I give the histogram a quick look, and as long as it looks right compared to the scene, I don't get too bent out of shape. Most of the time, as long as you aren't too stacked up at either one side or the other, then you will have a good exposure. The obvious exceptions are either high hey or low key where the histogram will be very much on one side or the other. So, the histogram is important, but it has to be viewed in relation to the scene in question (but not necessarily the review screen.) Flash exposure is the one place where the histogram doesn't tell you enough since, as you have surmised, it is possible to have a glorious histogram and a totally wrong fill exposure. Again, experience pays dividends, and in my case, a total lack of ability to run anything more complicated than a simple auto flash has saved me more than once. I don't use a TTL (or pTTL) flash. I just use a simple but very powerful auto flash, and I set everything manually. I don't like to leave that sort of thing to chance, or technology. I set my own aperture and shutter speed, and then I set the fill ratio by biasing the flash to either a higher or lower aperture number to give more or less flash output. I suppose I should try to figure out how to run my 540 flash sometime, Lord knows I paid enough for the thing and it has only been used once to make sure it worked at all, but even then, I set it on auto, chose an aperture and used it that way rather than on TTL.

04-05-2011, 12:50 AM	#20
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	histogram and bright dark flashy thing is essential i think. I have my LCD brightness up so i can use it in day light - I also have a matt protector screen to reduce reflections.

04-05-2011, 06:32 AM	#22
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield I set my own aperture and shutter speed, and then I set the fill ratio by biasing the flash to either a higher or lower aperture number to give more or less flash output. Do you find using the aperture setting on the flash works the same as the EV adjustment on the flash?

04-05-2011, 03:57 PM	#23
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by skyoftexas Do you find using the aperture setting on the flash works the same as the EV adjustment on the flash? Don't know. All I have on my flash is aperture adjustment for power output adjust. I expect that it would work more or less the same though, in that you are setting the flash to give more or less output compared to what would be considered normal. For example, I am shooting a wedding party outdoors, with a shutter speed of 1/125th at f/5.6. If I want a little less fill light, I set the flash to f/4, if I want a bit more fill, I set the flash to f/8. This would, I expect, correspond to setting either +1 or -1 EV adjust. If I need finer resolution, I adjust the aperture closer to the aperture of the flash and compensate with the shutter speed. I expect that it would be easier to do this with a dedicated flash, but I don't really like shoe mount flash units, and the way I do it is the same as I've been doing it for the past few decades, so it is second nature for me to make these adjustments, and I just do it without thinking.

04-05-2011, 04:43 PM	#24
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by skyoftexas Thanks everyone for being involved, but simico has given me the answer in another post: "If the histogram on the K-5 LCD looks ok, but you get a 1 stop underexposed image in your raw converter then you have D-Range turned ON and your raw converter doesn't know / support that feature. With D-Range turned ON the cam takes the shot 1EV underexposed and then pushes it for JPG if you shoot JPG or PDCU pushes it for your raw files by less then 1EV to preserve highlights." I had the D-Range on. I knew there had to be an explanation. I turned on the D-Range because DP had strongly recommended it, and I thought I had read it would benefit shooting in raw as well. I feel much better now. which converter were you using? is D-Range supported by Lightroom3?

04-05-2011, 06:21 PM	#25
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156 Original Poster	I'm using Adobe CS4 Photoshop. I just got CS5, but I don't know if that will have any effect yet. I can't answer the Lightroom question.

04-05-2011, 06:23 PM	#26
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield but I don't really like shoe mount flash units, So what type of flash unit are you using?

04-05-2011, 08:08 PM	#27
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by skyoftexas So what type of flash unit are you using? A really old Metz 60 CT-2, which is a handle mount flash. It tested within a tenth of a stop when I measured it with a flash meter, and it has proven itself to be a very robust and reliable flash. However, it doesn't talk to the digital cameras at all, so I just continue to use the PC socket that Pentax so thoughtfully provides. I'm probably one of about 6 people worldwide that appreciates that Pentax is just about the only manufacturer that still puts a PC socket onto their cameras. Also, I'm glad you got a solid answer about your dark screen problem, it kinda had me a bit baffled. I'm pretty sure Adobe doesn't play nice with the D-Range correction, and so is just seeing the raw file as a stop underexposed. Knowing this, you could easily write a profile (Adobe calls it a preset) to boost the density a stop and apply it during import as required.