[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Mr. sweetpapa, the issue i'm describing is something that is not entirely fixable with post processing. It's a dullness on such an extreme scale that making adjustments with software does not rectify the problem. The inability for a jpeg to express all of the properties of the raw file is not something that would remotely cause this. This is what i'd describe as a lack of shine/contrast so extreme in certain scenarios, that I am unable to retrieve a desireable result with expensive computer software. Using the camera to convert to jpeg is even more useless in my opinion, which has never given me results I cared for.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."/Marcello Truzzi

So you better post those evidence. This is not the K-5 I know.

[DogLover]

I don't think the OP is necessarily trying to be provocative, I think he seems genuinely curious about what he's seeing. But I agree that some photos are going to be needed to have a better understanding of what the perceived issue is.

[jbinpg]

Only way to confirm or deny the OP's problem is for him/her to post a raw image somewhere and let us have free reign at PPing a nice sharp, contrasty image out of it. Only then will we know if it is merely a process-oriented failing.

[Col]

For goodness sake its only data. It's already established that the 14bit files of the K5 contains more contrast information than any other (APS-c), what else is DR? So the OP doesn't like the Pentax tone curve, well apply a different one!

Straight from LR3.4 Left K-5 with "Adobe Standard" camera profile, Middle with Nikon D3 "Portrait" profile. Oh and the third is the Leica M8. So take your pick. If you pixel peep you loose the bigger picture, its just maths man.

---

Last edited by Col; 05-01-2011 at 04:28 PM.

[RBellavance]

For goodness sake its only data.

+1

A RAW file has no "look" per se. What defines how a photo looks is how you process the RAW data. And from what I see the K-5 gives you much more leeway in that respect that just about any other camera before it.

[RyanW]

[/url] [/IMG]

Rupert, to me, the skin tone looks off. Slighty too pink and slightly over saturated. It does seem like there is a light gray fog over the whole thing. The whites of the eyes should be closer to white than they are. But then it's always difficult to critique skin tone with any accuracy as everyone is slightly different. Maybe that is exactly her color, how would I know for certain?

Hopefully the OP can post some originals so we can look. One thing that can make a difference is that if you view raw files with the manufacturer's software, many times the jpg settings are rendered in the raw preview. True for Nikon if using ViewNx or CaptureNX and I believe true for DCU as well. OP doesn't mention what he's using as a raw processor, but that may account for how the Nikons look.

[sjwaldron]

What, the K-5 can't do shinny!?

RedGreenBluePhoto.com | Costumes - Hand Processed









I'd say the K-5 can do shinny...

[outsider]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."/Marcello Truzzi

So you better post those evidence. This is not the K-5 I know.

I may post a couple examples in the next day or so. I did so in my other post "The Undone look of Pentax RAW files". Right now i'm too lazy. I just want to see if there are others who have noticed this kind of rendering in specific........SPECIFIC scenarios. In most situations there's no problem and all the characteristics shine through. I'm not knocking pentax or any of the cameras, I'm just a kx user who upgraded to the k5 and was shocked at how much more stripped down raw image was, especially in darker photos. I can give examples, but i'm not eager to prove anything. It would be nice only to see if anyone else who does specific photography has had some of the same issues.

[Skymist]

I suspect that the poster is seeing a real effect of the new Pentax 14 bit raw encoding, which is now used by both the K-5 and the 645D. 14 bits instead of 12 bits. But I think it should not be taken an indication of something wrong. For more info than perhaps you need, see:

Re: K5 raw is 14 bit: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[Smeggypants]

I thought it would be good to start a new thread regarding how the Pentax K-5 renders raw files (It's specific "look"). I've noticed that the raw output of the k-5 has significantly less contrast than the raw output of the K-x. I thought something was wrong when I first noticed this. I'll give you an example using the type of photography I most commonly do. Taking the same closeup photograph of a face using the k-x and k-5, at wide aperture (1.4-2.0), focus spot on the eye, there is significantly less "shine" on the eye (with accurate focus). This may not be as noticeable on a sunny day, with ample light, but it is quite noticeable in darker light (ample light nontheless) or on a cloudy day. There is much less of what I call "sheen" or shine on the skin. It almost looks like a sort of cloudy film over such areas of the picture (eyes, skin). I should note that this "cloudy" effect seems to worsen almost exponentially, the darker the lighting is. At times, it's simply a disaster. The problem, i've found, with this is that in photographs where this is very prominent, it is extremely difficult to restore this "sheen" or "shine" to an acceptable level without also destroying the quality of the picture in a variety of ways, depending on the type of edit you are applying. There is no post processing tool that can compensate for certain shortcomings of how the information is processed IN camera. I have recieved feedback regarding this k-5 rendering in the form of such uninformed and some borderline assinine statements such as "the k-5 beats the k-x" and "the look of all raw output is the same for all makes/models of camera" or "The K-5 is a great camera". I understand the capability of the camera and I have found, without a doubt, that all digital slr's give quite different looks to raw images. Depending on this "look", it can either help or hurt you, depending on the kind of photography you do. If you need examples of this difference in raw output rendering, I can give you an example, or you can do a simple test yourself and see the difference. I'm actually quite shocked that I haven't seen discussion about this anywhere. When I did comparisons of raw output between pentax and nikon cameras, I noticed a huge difference in the way they render raw files. Nikon cameras, at least most of the common slr's output i've seen, render raw files much more "amped up". Colors are brighter, not overdone, skin shines with a brilliance that i'm convinced cannot be replicated in a pentax raw image in post processing, especially portraits of faces in overcast weather. The ability of Nikon cameras to pull sheen and glimmer of skin tones through on an overcast day is unmatched. This is true of most Nikon raw files before any post processing. There's a very fine, microcontrast that is applied at the pixel level of nikon images that really makes a portrait stand out in a way the k-5 seems incapable of (at least when shooting at wide apertures, which is what I have done). Even using the sigma 85mm 1.4, one of the most contrasty lenses available (and expensive), I simply cannot get the sheen I'm looking for if I want to take pictures on a cloudy day. Perhaps owners have not noticed this because they simply don't look close enough, but with my high standards, I must pixel peep. I expect an extremely high level of performance and pentax corporation should expect nothing less from its customers.

I didn't read a word of this. One block of mass text like this is too much of a mindkludge to waste time on

[sjwaldron]

Honestly, the K-5 RAW output brings be back to my roots as the results feel a lot more like my old *ist DS than my other current camera (K-7). So if there was a Pentax camera to be unique in output, it would be the K-7.

[JohnBee]

I didn't read a word of this. One block of mass text like this is too much of a mindkludge to waste time on

Let me see if I can't summarize for you;

The K-5 RAW isn't as good as the Kx in daylight. It can't do shiny skin or hard contrast highlights like Nikon.

At least that's what I understood out of it

[nanok]

okay. how do you know what the look of raw files is, i keep hearing this. you cannot _see_ raw files without processing them. you do realize that. that's why they are called "raw". you can't see them after you process them either, you only see an interpretation of them (hint: how many bits per pixel can your monitor do, and how many your camera, in the raw file?). you have been misled, you are comparing a combination of embedded default curves, different behavior of different raw processing software, and yes, anything of that sort can be fixed (or ****ed, according to ones taste) in pp, because all that IS pp

further more, isn't it a bit like.. trolling to post such a statement, and than say something to the effect "you all won't get it anyway, i've been told you'll all just go for my throat". so, leaving aside the disrespect to this community which you imply (which, i must add, it doesn't diserve, for the most part, this is one of the most balanced sane communities of photographers around), why did you post anyway? you like to be "attacked"? talk about self fulfilling prophecies.

yours is a common misconception (of which i'm tired), the truth is it might not be always easy to get to the exact look of "the other" brands _default output_ (jpg), but it's always possible to a reasonable degree, in practice, and exactly in theory. i was about to ask for the 2 pictures you mentioned, so i can see if i can help, but wait: you can't be bothered. you'd like, if possible, for people to just confirm your vague impressions, so you can continue rambling on with more ammunition for your vague-ware. so let me spare you the trouble: you're right, different raw files from different manufacturers look different, and the k-5 in particular sucks. (disclaimer: i've never seen any such raw files, and nobody on earth has, actually, but i have the vague impression it is so. or not).

if you're willing to sustain an interesting or at least half-interesting discussion, provide relevant samples, to sustain your point and help avoid straying from the subject, any topic is welcome here, and will be met with very open minded (and sometimes downright brilliant) analysis, but if you justhaveanimpressionofsomethingsomebodyoncetoldyoutheyheardoverinadiscussionsomewheresome undefinedtimeandwhatdowethinkaboutititsucskdoesntitpentaxshouldbeshot.. ughhh. no offense

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

small part of raw file:

00011001111000111110000011011101010100101010010110011010110101010101010....

So you can see them

[DRabbit]

I may post a couple examples in the next day or so. I did so in my other post "The Undone look of Pentax RAW files". Right now i'm too lazy. I just want to see if there are others who have noticed this kind of rendering in specific........SPECIFIC scenarios.

In all fairness, and I really don't mean this to sound rude, you are too lazy to post examples of what you mean, but you'd like us to take time to reply to you with answers over what you're seeing and criticizing in a very SPECIFIC specific scenario? That isn't exactly fair.

Take the time, post examples.

I think it could make for an interesting comparison and discussion, but when we have no idea exactly what you're talking about, you can't expect us to have anything valuable to say.