Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-01-2012, 03:52 AM   #31
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by lightbulb Quote
I was shooting a pretty parrot and upon zoom in 100% I saw faint moire. Should I sell the K5IIs?
With moire like that, I'd throw the camera in the garbage. - but that's just me

QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
Could you be a bit more precise about what you're saying is moire, please? Do you means the jaggies on the feather details? Or is there a colour moire I'm not seeing?
Take a few steps back and look again.

12-01-2012, 04:57 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
Haha sorry guys for the bad joke. Believe me I tried so hard to get moire with my usual photography subjects. Couldn't find any to share hence....
12-01-2012, 02:22 PM   #33
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
What can it do that I can't do with Paintshop Pro? More importantly, what can it do that I'm actually likely to want to do, which I can't do with PSP? At the moment I'm more interested in taking good photos than spending a lot of time trying to make a poor photo into a good one with Photoshop or any other editing tool. If I was going to spend $1000 I'd rather buy a new laptop or a new lens, not a photo editing program. Photoshop is not just a bit overpriced, it's ludicrously overpriced. Anyway, you're welcome to your opinion, of course. You're happy with the product (presumably) and what you can do with it. I'm happy with what I have too, and I'm not going to spend the price of a DA*300 f4 on a piece of software which gives me a very small advantage over what I have. Pretty much all the photos I have posted on this site were resized and tweaked with PSP, and they look fine to me.
Where I Disagree:
  • I disagree with the premise that editing tools are for making "a poor photo into a good one." Editing software serves the same purpose as many elements of a camera-system: optimizing the quality of your images.
  • Good lenses are for making "poor photos into good ones," aren't they? Would you make the same argument against purchasing a high-end lens?
  • The argument that you could buy a laptop or a DA*300 instead of Photoshop doesn't hold water. The full version of Photoshop CS6 is $699 (~ the price of a "Limited" lens); Photoshop Elements is $130 (~ the price of a used kit lens).

Where I Agree (or Defer):
  • I can't argue against the merits of Paintshop Pro because I know nothing about it. In fact—having looked it up just now, I'd say it looks (at first glance, at least) to be a pretty respectable offering. (That said—I'm sure there is a lot that you can do with PS that you can't with PSP.)
  • I just took a look on Adobe's site to see what Photoshop Elements is all about—and it doesn't look like a very sophisticated tool, frankly. (If so—I retract my earlier postulations about it being nearly fully featured… I may have been confusing it with some earlier "limited" version of Photoshop.)
  • I'd rather not do business with Adobe either, frankly. Their corporate mentality and marketplace practices suck. They purposely create inelasticity in the marketplace with their pricing scheme, and then leverage their monopoly position to extract revenue from their loyal (/dependent) customers. Their attitude towards customer service is utterly abhorrent as well.*

Ultimately, I respect where you're coming from, and if you're happy with your output—that's what matters most in the end. My argument is less about Photoshop (as the exclusive solution), and more about my belief that editing software can add tremendous value to the quality of imagery, and that digital photographers would be wise to consider their choice of software tools as seriously as they consider their choice of hardware (camera, lenses, etc.). In actuality—if I had to argue in favor of one application, it would be Adobe Lightroom—which is awesome, and only $150 for the full version. RAW + Lightroom 4 = no brainer.

* You might wonder how I can make the case for Photoshop, given my objections above. In simplest terms—I prefer to use the best tools I can; I also know Photoshop very well; and I rely on it for my design work. I'm also making good on a promise I made to myself years ago—to purchase Photoshop if/when I ever started using it professionally. I used mostly cracked versions in the past (when I was in college and not making any money from it, or from anything). Since I use it professionally now and can afford to pay for it, I do. The upside—I really do feel like I have the best suite of design software available. The downside—I pay a good chunk of money to a company I dislike. My fantasy—fire Adobe's corporate leadership, or steal Adobe's engineering team and build something from the ground up to compete with Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.

On the topic of piracy—I wholeheartedly believe that part of Adobe's strategy in the past not only involved encouraging piracy, but also making it easy to achieve. (e.g., Full versions of CS4 / CS5 could be downloaded directly from Adobe, and activation disabled extremely easily). In so doing, Adobe built a huge user base, which allowed them to build / maintain market dominance, which enabled them to implement the exorbitant corporate-centric pricing scheme. Now, they've conjured up the "creative cloud" subscription scheme, which allows users to rent a license for CS6 for $20/month. For businesses (e.g. advertising agencies), this scheme is a transparently foolish investment, since it involves paying for something which loses 100% of its value after 30 days, rather than paying for an asset which retains value over time, can be sold or amortized, etc.. Smaller, independent users (e.g., freelance designers, etc.), have far fewer resources, so they're more likely to sacrifice long-term value for short-term survival. Adobe once gave these users the option of piracy (unofficially)—and now, they give them the option of paying $20 a month for the same thing (using the product, but without a license). It's a clever move, since it opens up a new revenue stream and allows Adobe to defend itself (disingenuously) against the argument that it soaks its corporate customers with exorbitant prices.
12-01-2012, 04:09 PM   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,127
QuoteQuote:
I kind of agree. Everyone using a digital camera would certainly benefit from using and becoming familiar with a decent graphics app.
Well. I don't see it that way, not if it's photoshop. I taught photoshop, and used it for 20 years. There is stuff in there that you will never use, and really isn't likely to become necessary unless you're running a graphics production house. Do you really need the ability to combine 14 different photos with all the eye popping fonts to make a cereal box front? If you buy photoshop you're paying for it whether or not you use it. If you're a graphics house turning out $300-$400k a year, sure, buy photoshop. As a photographer a program like Aperture is just fine, in fact, I prefer it. When I need layers, my $50 copy of Pixelmator works just fine. I have a copy of photoshop sitting in my installer file waiting to be installed. It's been there for a couple years. I got it from a friend in the graphics industry who bought more licenses than he needed. If I ever feel I need it, I'll come back and let you know what I needed it for. Photoshop is as much graphics software as it is for photographers. A couple of the pros I know were quite happy with free software like Graphic converter. It did enough for them, they could turn out pro prints without paying anything. If your goal is to sit behind a computer and be a graphics professional, which is what happened to another friend, fine then. He knows photoshop inside and out. ANd he never gets out into the field to shoot anymore, hasn't taken a picture professionally for years. It's not a job everybody wants.

Find something that does a good job on your images. That definitely doesn't have to be Photoshop.


Last edited by normhead; 12-01-2012 at 04:17 PM.
12-01-2012, 04:32 PM   #35
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 488
I shoot wildlife and there are many different thoughts on using editing software. It is strictly a personal thing and what you like. If you are an amateur like me or a pro all think different.
I find Photoshop a tool that I use on every photo I put on the net. The problem is the learning curve behind it IMO. It took me 2 years of using it to really understand what was going on at a beginners level. I am still learning and love to use the Program more every day. But I also love taking photos. Photoshop is very fast and easy once you get the hang of it. I have not found anything that comes close to PS. But I am open to suggestions.
In my opinion it is a must have for me. I use it daily and love it.

Every photo here has been Photo Shopped. No exception. www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
12-01-2012, 06:17 PM   #36
Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,627
QuoteOriginally posted by jasonwarth Quote
I disagree with the premise that editing tools are for making "a poor photo into a good one." Editing software serves the same purpose as many elements of a camera-system: optimizing the quality of your images.
Just as working in a dark-room once did. Sure. My point was garbage-in-garbage-out. I want to take the best source images I can, so I think it would make more sense for me to buy a better lens than spend the same amount on a piece of software. If I had all the lenses I could possibly need, it would perhaps make sense. I just bought a K-5iis, which has produced far more improvement in capture quality than a piece of software could ever achieve.

QuoteQuote:
Good lenses are for making "poor photos into good ones," aren't they? Would you make the same argument against purchasing a high-end lens?
See above. It's a question of priorities.

QuoteQuote:
The argument that you could buy a laptop or a DA*300 instead of Photoshop doesn't hold water. The full version of Photoshop CS6 is $699 (~ the price of a "Limited" lens); Photoshop Elements is $130 (~ the price of a used kit lens).
Did you read what I wrote about the price of photoshop to an Australian? The online price from adobe is AUD$1062. That's almost exactly the same as the black friday price for the DA300. PS Elements is AUD$131, yes.

QuoteQuote:
I can't argue against the merits of Paintshop Pro because I know nothing about it. In fact—having looked it up just now, I'd say it looks (at first glance, at least) to be a pretty respectable offering. (That said—I'm sure there is a lot that you can do with PS that you can't with PSP.)
And there may well be stuff that PS does which I can't do with PSP. My point was that I doubt that there's enough value in the difference to justify the cost.

QuoteQuote:
I just took a look on Adobe's site to see what Photoshop Elements is all about—and it doesn't look like a very sophisticated tool, frankly. (If so—I retract my earlier postulations about it being nearly fully featured… I may have been confusing it with some earlier "limited" version of Photoshop.)
As far as I know, it was created by Adobe to reduce the losses to products like PSP. That's why it's in that price bracket with the minimum set of photo editing tools so people can be encouraged to buy the "known and trusted" product.

QuoteQuote:
Ultimately, I respect where you're coming from, and if you're happy with your output—that's what matters most in the end. My argument is less about Photoshop (as the exclusive solution), and more about my belief that editing software can add tremendous value to the quality of imagery, and that digital photographers would be wise to consider their choice of software tools as seriously as they consider their choice of hardware (camera, lenses, etc.).
Oh, in that respect I agree absolutely.

QuoteQuote:
In actuality—if I had to argue in favor of one application, it would be Adobe Lightroom—which is awesome, and only $150 for the full version. RAW + Lightroom 4 = no brainer.
I should give a trial copy a go.

QuoteQuote:
On the topic of piracy—I wholeheartedly believe that part of Adobe's strategy in the past not only involved encouraging piracy, but also making it easy to achieve.
Could be. I'm not sure. I don't use cracked software. That's another reason why I find programs which are so expensive hard to justify.
Glad we could agree on the editing issue.
12-01-2012, 06:51 PM   #37
Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,627
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There is stuff in there that you will never use, and really isn't likely to become necessary unless you're running a graphics production house.
Exactly.

QuoteQuote:
If your goal is to sit behind a computer and be a graphics professional, which is what happened to another friend, fine then. He knows photoshop inside and out. ANd he never gets out into the field to shoot anymore, hasn't taken a picture professionally for years. It's not a job everybody wants.
This was a point I was trying to make also - in another thread, I was being told that it was possible to get just as much detail out of a K-5 as a K-5iis using software, making the risk of moire in the K-5iis unnecessary. While that may be true, my preference is that my original image from the camera is as close as possible to what I wanted with a minimum of processing. I simply don't have the time to go through complicated post processing with a significant number of images. Generally the only post processing I do is to crop, tweak the curves, resize, sharpen slightly (because resizing causes a loss of sharpness), and save. Sometimes I might have to adjust the colour balance or saturation.

Usually the reason I have to spend more time with post processing is because I didn't get the original image right - my light meter pattern may have been wrong so the photo was underexposed for example.

QuoteQuote:
Find something that does a good job on your images. That definitely doesn't have to be Photoshop.
And if the software you use does what you need, it's fine. The caveat here is not to be limited by the software too much. The only limitation I've run into recently with PSP was when I was trying to resize an image to print it on a huge canvas. I've used other tools which were great for specific purposes - e.g. as a general image viewer I use Irfanview. Another relatively low cost tool for a specific purpose was Picture Window Pro, which is an awesome tool for adjusting scanned negatives because of the way it allows channels to be adjusted. I also bought ACDSee for use as a way to organise my collection of images, but I've barely looked at it since I installed it. For video editing I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio which has the key features of the full Vegas product for a fraction of the price. It does a decent job of slideshows and can be used to make timelapse movies as well. All of that can be bought for considerably less than a Photoshop license, and Irfanview is free.

PS Sorry for hijacking a discussion about moire into a discussion about software. The lack of moire examples may have something to do with it.

Last edited by RobG; 12-01-2012 at 08:55 PM. Reason: more info
12-01-2012, 07:28 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
I am using LR4.2

The k5iis has plenty more details than k5 especially at wide aperture. No contest.

12-02-2012, 12:18 AM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,770
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Well. I don't see it that way, not if it's photoshop.
I think we actually agree. I did say 'a decent graphics app', rather than PS per se.

I personally don't have PS because I agree that PS is simply too bloated for photo editing requirements. Even PS Elements 8, which I own, does much more than I need. (Hence I haven't bothered upgrading PSE past v8).

I guess I should have been more precise in my wording - I should have said 'Everyone using a digital camera would certainly benefit from using and becoming familiar with a decent photo editing app'. Even if it's just the software that came with the camera, like PDCU4.

Lightroom, however, is a much better tool for photogs, much more tailored to the job. While I have some disdain for PS, I really like LR a lot.
12-02-2012, 10:52 AM   #40
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It's a matter of philosophy, do you go for the sharpest possible image, or do you compromise trying to avoid problems.
And here is a different philosophy, does it actually matter?
Would your image be better if it would be slightly sharper, have slightly less moire, since when does this make or break a photo?

This is all so silly...
Who always blames it on poor equipment again?

Come on lets have a photography outing and shoot brick walls all day to see which camera and lens is the sharpest, and lets check the focus and look for dead pixels at the same time as well...
Some people make great photos with their cellphone in the mean time while we are pixel peeping the hell out of the difference for a filter while nobody is actually looking at the photo itself...

Well i'm going to edit again..... need to photoshop a skinny girl of 22 so she looks prettier... what a world right.

Last edited by Anvh; 12-02-2012 at 12:36 PM.
12-02-2012, 11:20 AM   #41
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It's a matter of philosophy, do you go for the sharpest possible image, or do you compromise trying to avoid problems. Having compared images, and having decided that using a K5IIs there is absolutely no reason to move to a D600.. this is critical stuff. Not changing system saves me a pile of money. Looking at a K-5 or K5 II image, I'm not sure I would make the same decision. I've always felt K-5 images should be sharper... now they are.
If you're into sharpening then the K-5 IIs holds no sharpness advantage over the K-5 II.
12-02-2012, 12:11 PM   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,127
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
If you're into sharpening then the K-5 IIs holds no sharpness advantage over the K-5 II.
This is a problem of semantics, so technically you are correct. However what I was referring two was not sharpening per se but the rendition of fine detail and small nuances within that detail. A little bit of coloour contrast here, small gradations in colour rendition that create an added feeling of depth. To me that's part of sharpness although it has nothing to do with the type of sharpness you get with post processing. I'm not arguing you can't get the same level of sharpening. I'm arguing you don't get as crisp a rendition.

After saying that , I've also decided to get a k-5 at $799 instead of the IIs at $1349. There is absolutely no way that little bit of difference is worth $549 to me. No print will ever be sold or not sold based on that teeny tiny little difference.Getting a Sigma 8-16 and a 15Ltd will make way more difference to my photography, and $549 gets me a long way to getting one of those lenses.
12-02-2012, 04:06 PM   #43
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
...what I was referring two was not sharpening per se but the rendition of fine detail and small nuances within that detail. A little bit of coloour contrast here, small gradations in colour rendition that create an added feeling of depth. To me that's part of sharpness although it has nothing to do with the type of sharpness you get with post processing. I'm not arguing you can't get the same level of sharpening. I'm arguing you don't get as crisp a rendition.
Have a look at these:

CANDIDATE-A


CANDIDATE-B


PS. One is the K-5 IIs and the other is the K-5 II with a deblur applied to counter the effects of the AA filter.

Last edited by JohnBee; 12-02-2012 at 04:17 PM.
12-03-2012, 12:28 PM   #44
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
I should give a trial copy a go
Rob: if all we get out of this lively discussion is you giving Lightroom a try—I think it will have been worth it. :-) Honestly, I can't imagine using a DSLR without Lightroom. Shoot in RAW (always), process in Lightroom (which is really powerful, flexible and enjoyable), and export to jpeg (or printed books, or whatever). It's true that Photoshop has all sorts of features that don't apply to photography (e.g., 3D, video, type, etc.). Lightroom is the answer to that—in that it strips away all those features, re-assembles the core functions into a much more user-friendly interface, and sells for a fraction of the price. It's a brilliant piece of software.

P.S. If you're curious to see how I use PS and LR, you can see some of my work by clicking on my signature below.
12-03-2012, 12:53 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 804
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Have a look at these:

CANDIDATE-A


CANDIDATE-B


PS. One is the K-5 IIs and the other is the K-5 II with a deblur applied to counter the effects of the AA filter.
I bet, candidate B is K5 with deblur;based on the fact that deblur increased noise in the black area bottom right
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 K-5 II K-5 IIs, e dial issue, Noise Eder Pentax K-5 17 06-03-2014 12:33 AM
Suggestion K-5 forum renamed to K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs? Buschmaster Site Suggestions and Help 2 10-16-2012 02:17 PM
Pentax could we get the K-5 II / K-5 IIs in color please? Hegemon Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 10-14-2012 01:59 AM
How to Fight with Moire with IIs ? Raw Ideas. cbaytan Pentax K-5 22 10-03-2012 02:01 PM
K5-IIs and Moiré troenaas Photographic Industry and Professionals 31 09-22-2012 04:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top