[outsider]

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.

[Verglace]

excellent post, though I suspect you will just be shut down by the pentax can do no wrong crowd.

[outsider]

excellent post, though I suspect you will just be shut down by the pentax can do no wrong crowd.

Funny you say that, someone said the same thing before I posted this. I am fairly new to the forum so maybe I am breaking an unwritten rule here, but well, I don't know. We'll see I've been wanting to have some discussion about this. Been getting to me and I just wasn't sure if I was imagining things.

[wizofoz]

I think you will find that Pentax made a deliberate decision to leave the final 'look' of the pic to the photographer, giving us a 'blank canvas' to work with. So, rather than having a specific 'Pentax' look, we have the ability to make whatever look we like. The Nikon camera's are biased to a certain 'Nikon Look' which is what you are describing.

Whatever sheen and glow you require from skin tones can be delivered with the Pentax raw files with appropriate manipulation in PP.

[sweetpapa]

is this due to the wide dynamic range that the K-5 has in the RAW files so they look flat? When exporting to JPEG, you can't get all the dynamic range stored in the RAW file, so you have to post process to make it contrasty.

[HoundFrog]

Sweetpapa, exactly my thoughts. K5 dynamic range is wide. When you look at raw image, you actually see how it is rendered by viewer. Tone curve is totally up to this software, and it may just have not perfect K-5 profile.
But its ok, you know. The thing is, raw files are not for viewing. To watch or exchange your work it is JPEG.
So, if we are talking about just viewer, just newermind. If it is an editor like Adobe's ACR, set proper contast curve.

[outsider]

is this due to the wide dynamic range that the K-5 has in the RAW files so they look flat? When exporting to JPEG, you can't get all the dynamic range stored in the RAW file, so you have to post process to make it contrasty.

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.

[outsider]

I think you will find that Pentax made a deliberate decision to leave the final 'look' of the pic to the photographer, giving us a 'blank canvas' to work with. So, rather than having a specific 'Pentax' look, we have the ability to make whatever look we like. The Nikon camera's are biased to a certain 'Nikon Look' which is what you are describing.

Whatever sheen and glow you require from skin tones can be delivered with the Pentax raw files with appropriate manipulation in PP.

In bad cases of this dullness, post processing has been unsuccessful at fixing. I think the stripped down rendering of pentax files is good, but this works against you when working with portraits of people in dim-ish lighting. There have been several times I have not been able to restore the sheen in eyes and skin. This is when taking a picture in dull, gray, overcast light. On bright days, the kick is there and ther's nothing more to be desired. Still not as bright and shiny as a nikon rendering though. In the large scheme of things, maybe the pentax look is more favorable for most photographic scenarios.

[JohnBee]

The first thing I'd say is that; unless you can post comparison images, there really isn't much one can expected to come out of a thread like this beyond the usual flaming etc.

Having said that, I'd be very curious to conduct tests of my own to see if they can't be reproduced. However, in my own experience, I've found the K-5 to be very much like the K200D RAW files in terms of sharpness and contrast separation. Which seems to be the polar opposite of what the Kx is in this regard.

So again... this all leads us back to the need for RAW examples or samples in order to evaluate output. Though what really stands-out in your post, is where you claim that the files can't be adjusted or worked around in processing, which is quite controversial if you think about it. - To which I'd ask, what RAW developer software are you using?

Another strange issue in your post is where you claim to not be able to extrapolate sheen or microcontrast... to which I'd ask... have you not learned how to post process for this with RAW images? And if so, what technique(approach) are you using?

Having no idea what Nikon sensor you're referring too, but if its the D7K then I can say that the K-5 is a step ahead when it comes to pixel definition and edge detail. The differences between the two are likely at the AA filter level, but that wouldn't impact output if/when you think about it given how RAW images are processed in the first place.

Anyways, all of the fingers seem to be pointing at PP and not the RAW image itself. And so I think the trick here is in learning how to better process RAW images according to the file rather than comparing RAW images with similar processing methods. ie. what works for one sensor file may or may not work with another. Which is in no way helpful in comparing RAW file quality.

[Rondec]

The issue is purely one of the developer. A RAW file is a raw file. When you open it in the developer, you see some initial settings or guesses on expected development. However, I really don't think that if you expose a photo the same on the D7000 and the K5, that there will be a significant difference between the RAW files. That does not mean that when you open them in ACR (or whatever you use) that they will look the same, but the same manipulations will be possible to get them there.

[wizofoz]

oops double post

[asdf]

Paragraphs and pictures would help.

[Rupert]

Just not so......I have been printing my Studio shots next to my friends D3X and in many of the shots he actually prefers the K5 "look" over his own. Of course, he is not a "Fanboy" shooter, just a Pro that is interested in the final result, not the camera it came from. Maybe he will end up liking the 645D better, who knows, he has one on order. At any rate, he understands that the "look" has as much to do with processing as it does with the camera.

Secondly, processing always depends on the processor, both the person and the program. I use both Adobe Raw, light version, and Silkypix. I can assure you there is a ton of difference in the two in the final result.....but some might prefer one, some the other.

Thirdly, the K5 has been reviewed and tested by some of the most respected sites on the internet, and found to have superb IQ from Raw. Can you show us your credentials in Raw processing, along with some examples of your findings that include the Raw files so we can have an opportunity to show you where you went wrong in processing?

Best Regards!

BTW- Before I even logged on, I just printed this on Epson gloss for my wife to take to this little girl in her Sunday School class this morning. I can assure you that at 8x10 it has all the "look" any camera in the world would ever need to render. I can count every freckle, and if the eyes don't have sheen, I am surely a blind man.....a blind man with 20/30 according to a recent exam.

Yes, I have the Raw file for anyone interested, they can probably do better than I did, but I am not complaining.
[IMG] [/IMG]

[creampuff]

Where are the comparative photos to back up the OP's assertions?
Talking about something visual is pretty meaningless on its own.

[Rupert]

I would like to see some pictures from the OP that illustrate what he is describing. Pentax has always had a somewhat conservative approach to their stock rendering, I suspect because one can always add contrast, saturation and sharpness, but going the other way is difficult to say the least.
I know my raw files look kinda flat when compared to my friend's 7D files, and my portraits definitely look flat when compared to the portraits taken with the Nikons in our studio, but this has always been a matter of their defaults give more contrast and saturation than Pentax, and it has always been possible to bring the Pentax files up to a similar level with post processing (or just setting the camera settings on the high side).

Agree......(That doesn't happen often, does it Wheatfield!)
One of the strengths of Pentax has always been the allowance they give the shooter to process the finished image to their own taste. The data is all there, but you get to make the decisions, not Nikon or Canon, or Pentax......you do it. Now we are being told that is a bad thing?
I know that "modern logic" is a strange fellow, but don't you think it is a bit overboard to believe less control is better?

Regards!