Turn off all PP

Markbrumbaugh · 01-01-2012, 08:23 AM

What all do I need to do to turn off all in camera PP?

Anvh · 01-01-2012, 08:47 AM

That won't work or else nothing would come out of the camera.
Just go through the menu and all the option, it's quite clear which one are PP.
Lens correction, noise reduction, filters and expended dynamic range settings are the bovious one, if you shoot in RAW most PP will be gone.

HEEGZ · 01-01-2012, 08:47 AM

If you are shooting JPEG, you can turn off: highlight, shadow, and distortion correction, lat-chromatic-ab adj, HDR capture, and any digital filters. On your custom image settings, I have found Portrait to be the most neutral of the options. I might be overlooking a few, but those are the main ones I can think of.

**maxfield_photo** · 01-01-2012, 08:56 AM

Just shoot in RAW, it's in the camera menu under "file type" (first tab for me). To my knowledge Pentax doesn't apply any PP to their RAW files. The camera will save a white balance of course, it's got to have a starting point, but you can just change that to anything you like in post. If you really want to shoot JPEG though, choose the default settings on "natural" color mode, and make sure you have things like lens correction turned off.

If you need specific steps to find all the settings, we'll need to know which camera you're using.

Markbrumbaugh · 01-01-2012, 09:09 AM

Got it. Seemed to be mainly under Camera 2 and 3 on the K-5. Thanks.

RioRico · 01-01-2012, 10:28 AM

As Anvh said, without PP there is no image, just a latent set of raw data. You can ABANDON CONTROL of the image by neutering all PP settings, thus defaulting to the algorithms and settings that Pentax design engineers thought best for you. Or you can TAKE CONTROL of the image by making it look the way you want, with in-camera settings and PP work.

Remember that what you think you see, what you want to see, what the camera sees, and what's really there (if anything), are NOT the same. And light is not constant -- I've found that I need to boost contrast and saturation in dense air, and drastically reduce those at high elevations with thin clear air. Abandoning settings doesn't mean you'll get honest pictures, just uncontrolled ones.

sprocketdog23 · 01-01-2012, 11:30 AM

The settings are there to help you get the most from any particular shooting situation. You really need to get as familiar with them as you can, as different lighting and situations require adapting the settings and making adjustments. A lot of photographers shoot RAW because it minimises errors of judgement, but you can achieve exactly the results you want on a shoot by knowing how to operate your camera effectively. Personally, I rarely shoot in RAW, preferring to get the processing done in camera whilst out on a shoot. Knowing just what you want from a shot is a big step. A lot of the photographers I teach in my day job mistakenly leave that bit to the PP stage, and never really spend the time learning how to fully operate their cameras. I say, turn on and muck about with those settings and see what happens, but also turn them off and see what happens; above all have fun and learn how your camera responds in as many situations as you can.

Markbrumbaugh · 01-01-2012, 12:14 PM

Well I thought I'd shoot raw and give it a try in Photoshop Elements for a while to see if I could do better than the camera's algorithms. I do appreciate all the comments.
I also boosted my jpgs to the max to see if working them over is any better than starting with raw.

HEEGZ · 01-01-2012, 01:07 PM

Shooting in RAW has revolutionized the way I make images. Have fun experimenting. Which RAW editor(s) do you have to work with Mark?

Markbrumbaugh · 01-01-2012, 01:21 PM

Photoshop camera raw in Elements.

Anvh · 01-01-2012, 01:38 PM

Just do what works best for you.
I try to shoot in a way to maximize the captured data and that mean the shots look hororable straight out of the camera but i shot them with editing in mind.
Does that make me a bad photographer then someone that can get a good photo out of the camera straight away, i don't think so, it's just a different way of working.

One general rule is though to edit a JPG photo as little as you can, it will degrade your image quality when you edit it a lot. If you know you want or need to edit afterwards then always shoot in RAW.

sprocketdog23 · 01-01-2012, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Just do what works best for you.
I try to shoot in a way to maximize the captured data and that mean the shots look hororable straight out of the camera but i shot them with editing in mind.
Does that make me a bad photographer then someone that can get a good photo out of the camera straight away, i don't think so, it's just a different way of working.

One general rule is though to edit a JPG photo as little as you can, it will degrade your image quality when you edit it a lot. If you know you want or need to edit afterwards then always shoot in RAW.

No, it doesn't make you a bad photographer at all. I think that there is a misconception amongst a lot of DSLR owners that shooting RAW will always save the day, which can lead to some lessening of the craft, and lack of real skills and knowledge. If you work hard to get your exposures and compositions spot on during a photoshoot, then RAW gives you that little bit of extra personal control over your own imagery. Personally, I mostly shoot jpg, but choose RAW when the lighting is really tricky or I'm unsure my camera will cope if I shoot jpg

**maxfield_photo** · 01-01-2012, 06:50 PM

I think of RAW as the digital version of negative film, and JPEG as transparency film. Both are capable of producing good results. RAW takes more work, i.e. you have to develop it, but just like in the darkroom there is more latitude for correction. With JPEG, just like with transparency film, if you blow out the highlights, they're gone, there is no recovering them. I think that's why Pentax cameras underexpose so often, it's to protect the highlights.

I use a Sekonic light meter, and an Xrite color checker, I shoot in manual mode and in RAW, so I don't care some much about accuracy at the time of exposure (I know how to do that if need be), my main concern is consistency. Consistent exposure, consistent white balance. As long as it's the same from shot to shot, it's easy to correct a whole afternoon's shooting in a few minutes, particularly with Lightroom. I consider myself a purist, and I can see how it might be considered "lessening the craft", but I just think of it as making the decisions later, when I have more time to consider all the variables. The things I can't fix later, like lighting ratios, quality of light, and mixed color temperature lighting I try to nail during the shoot.

creampuff · 01-01-2012, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by sprocketdog23

No, it doesn't make you a bad photographer at all. I think that there is a misconception amongst a lot of DSLR owners that shooting RAW will always save the day, which can lead to some lessening of the craft, and lack of real skills and knowledge. If you work hard to get your exposures and compositions spot on during a photoshoot, then RAW gives you that little bit of extra personal control over your own imagery. Personally, I mostly shoot jpg, but choose RAW when the lighting is really tricky or I'm unsure my camera will cope if I shoot jpg

Looking at your bio, I'm actually surprised that as someone who teaches photography, you advocate shooting jpeg over RAW. To say that RAW gives that little bit of extra personal control is surely an understatement. Yes it is a given that shooting RAW is not a substitute to getting exposure correct but to extend the argument that it can lead to lessening of the craft is preposterous. Surely capitalizing on capturing the widest possible dynamic range and the most amount of image information as the starting point is what shooting RAW is all about.

If you didn't know, an 8 bit jpeg file only offers 256 tonal values per channel while a 12 bit RAW file offers a whopping 4,096 tonal values per channel. That's a big tradeoff when shooting jpeg.

HEEGZ · 01-01-2012, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

I think of RAW as the digital version of negative film, and JPEG as transparency film. Both are capable of producing good results. RAW takes more work, i.e. you have to develop it, but just like in the darkroom there is more latitude for correction. With JPEG, just like with transparency film, if you blow out the highlights, they're gone, there is no recovering them. I think that's why Pentax cameras underexpose so often, it's to protect the highlights.

This is an excellent analogy, I think I'm going to steal it for myself...

01-01-2012, 08:23 AM	#1
Markbrumbaugh Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 77	Turn off all PP What all do I need to do to turn off all in camera PP?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What do I need to turn off?	robr7	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	09-15-2011 01:17 PM
Sr will not turn off	Willowzxx	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	07-07-2011 07:14 AM
Nature U-Turn	eaglem	Post Your Photos!	2	04-04-2011 01:59 AM
sr won't turn on .	Rick G	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	01-14-2010 02:29 PM
To turn right or to turn left	spura	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	04-15-2009 11:29 AM

01-01-2012, 08:47 AM	#2
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	That won't work or else nothing would come out of the camera. Just go through the menu and all the option, it's quite clear which one are PP. Lens correction, noise reduction, filters and expended dynamic range settings are the bovious one, if you shoot in RAW most PP will be gone.

01-01-2012, 08:47 AM	#3
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	If you are shooting JPEG, you can turn off: highlight, shadow, and distortion correction, lat-chromatic-ab adj, HDR capture, and any digital filters. On your custom image settings, I have found Portrait to be the most neutral of the options. I might be overlooking a few, but those are the main ones I can think of.

01-01-2012, 08:56 AM	#4
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	Just shoot in RAW, it's in the camera menu under "file type" (first tab for me). To my knowledge Pentax doesn't apply any PP to their RAW files. The camera will save a white balance of course, it's got to have a starting point, but you can just change that to anything you like in post. If you really want to shoot JPEG though, choose the default settings on "natural" color mode, and make sure you have things like lens correction turned off. If you need specific steps to find all the settings, we'll need to know which camera you're using.

01-01-2012, 09:09 AM	#5
Markbrumbaugh Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 77 Original Poster	Got it. Seemed to be mainly under Camera 2 and 3 on the K-5. Thanks.

01-01-2012, 10:28 AM	#6
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	As Anvh said, without PP there is no image, just a latent set of raw data. You can ABANDON CONTROL of the image by neutering all PP settings, thus defaulting to the algorithms and settings that Pentax design engineers thought best for you. Or you can TAKE CONTROL of the image by making it look the way you want, with in-camera settings and PP work. Remember that what you think you see, what you want to see, what the camera sees, and what's really there (if anything), are NOT the same. And light is not constant -- I've found that I need to boost contrast and saturation in dense air, and drastically reduce those at high elevations with thin clear air. Abandoning settings doesn't mean you'll get honest pictures, just uncontrolled ones.

01-01-2012, 11:30 AM	#7
sprocketdog23 New Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Belper, UK Posts: 16	The settings are there to help you get the most from any particular shooting situation. You really need to get as familiar with them as you can, as different lighting and situations require adapting the settings and making adjustments. A lot of photographers shoot RAW because it minimises errors of judgement, but you can achieve exactly the results you want on a shoot by knowing how to operate your camera effectively. Personally, I rarely shoot in RAW, preferring to get the processing done in camera whilst out on a shoot. Knowing just what you want from a shot is a big step. A lot of the photographers I teach in my day job mistakenly leave that bit to the PP stage, and never really spend the time learning how to fully operate their cameras. I say, turn on and muck about with those settings and see what happens, but also turn them off and see what happens; above all have fun and learn how your camera responds in as many situations as you can.

01-01-2012, 12:14 PM	#8
Markbrumbaugh Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 77 Original Poster	Well I thought I'd shoot raw and give it a try in Photoshop Elements for a while to see if I could do better than the camera's algorithms. I do appreciate all the comments. I also boosted my jpgs to the max to see if working them over is any better than starting with raw.

01-01-2012, 01:07 PM	#9
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	Shooting in RAW has revolutionized the way I make images. Have fun experimenting. Which RAW editor(s) do you have to work with Mark?

01-01-2012, 01:21 PM	#10
Markbrumbaugh Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 77 Original Poster	Photoshop camera raw in Elements.

01-01-2012, 01:38 PM	#11
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Just do what works best for you. I try to shoot in a way to maximize the captured data and that mean the shots look hororable straight out of the camera but i shot them with editing in mind. Does that make me a bad photographer then someone that can get a good photo out of the camera straight away, i don't think so, it's just a different way of working. One general rule is though to edit a JPG photo as little as you can, it will degrade your image quality when you edit it a lot. If you know you want or need to edit afterwards then always shoot in RAW.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-01-2012, 05:21 PM	#12
sprocketdog23 New Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Belper, UK Posts: 16	Originally posted by Anvh Just do what works best for you. I try to shoot in a way to maximize the captured data and that mean the shots look hororable straight out of the camera but i shot them with editing in mind. Does that make me a bad photographer then someone that can get a good photo out of the camera straight away, i don't think so, it's just a different way of working. One general rule is though to edit a JPG photo as little as you can, it will degrade your image quality when you edit it a lot. If you know you want or need to edit afterwards then always shoot in RAW. No, it doesn't make you a bad photographer at all. I think that there is a misconception amongst a lot of DSLR owners that shooting RAW will always save the day, which can lead to some lessening of the craft, and lack of real skills and knowledge. If you work hard to get your exposures and compositions spot on during a photoshoot, then RAW gives you that little bit of extra personal control over your own imagery. Personally, I mostly shoot jpg, but choose RAW when the lighting is really tricky or I'm unsure my camera will cope if I shoot jpg

01-01-2012, 06:50 PM	#13
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	I think of RAW as the digital version of negative film, and JPEG as transparency film. Both are capable of producing good results. RAW takes more work, i.e. you have to develop it, but just like in the darkroom there is more latitude for correction. With JPEG, just like with transparency film, if you blow out the highlights, they're gone, there is no recovering them. I think that's why Pentax cameras underexpose so often, it's to protect the highlights. I use a Sekonic light meter, and an Xrite color checker, I shoot in manual mode and in RAW, so I don't care some much about accuracy at the time of exposure (I know how to do that if need be), my main concern is consistency. Consistent exposure, consistent white balance. As long as it's the same from shot to shot, it's easy to correct a whole afternoon's shooting in a few minutes, particularly with Lightroom. I consider myself a purist, and I can see how it might be considered "lessening the craft", but I just think of it as making the decisions later, when I have more time to consider all the variables. The things I can't fix later, like lighting ratios, quality of light, and mixed color temperature lighting I try to nail during the shoot.

01-01-2012, 06:58 PM	#14
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by sprocketdog23 No, it doesn't make you a bad photographer at all. I think that there is a misconception amongst a lot of DSLR owners that shooting RAW will always save the day, which can lead to some lessening of the craft, and lack of real skills and knowledge. If you work hard to get your exposures and compositions spot on during a photoshoot, then RAW gives you that little bit of extra personal control over your own imagery. Personally, I mostly shoot jpg, but choose RAW when the lighting is really tricky or I'm unsure my camera will cope if I shoot jpg Looking at your bio, I'm actually surprised that as someone who teaches photography, you advocate shooting jpeg over RAW. To say that RAW gives that little bit of extra personal control is surely an understatement. Yes it is a given that shooting RAW is not a substitute to getting exposure correct but to extend the argument that it can lead to lessening of the craft is preposterous. Surely capitalizing on capturing the widest possible dynamic range and the most amount of image information as the starting point is what shooting RAW is all about. If you didn't know, an 8 bit jpeg file only offers 256 tonal values per channel while a 12 bit RAW file offers a whopping 4,096 tonal values per channel. That's a big tradeoff when shooting jpeg.

01-01-2012, 07:29 PM	#15
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	Originally posted by maxfield_photo I think of RAW as the digital version of negative film, and JPEG as transparency film. Both are capable of producing good results. RAW takes more work, i.e. you have to develop it, but just like in the darkroom there is more latitude for correction. With JPEG, just like with transparency film, if you blow out the highlights, they're gone, there is no recovering them. I think that's why Pentax cameras underexpose so often, it's to protect the highlights. This is an excellent analogy, I think I'm going to steal it for myself...