Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-17-2012, 01:44 AM   #16
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 21
i played with levels a bit on one or two of them, but i think you'll like the jpegs straight out of the camera.
the one with the plastic mugs on the rack was straight from camera for example.

all done with kit lenses (18-55, 50-200)

04-17-2012, 01:45 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
Hi suoersta
I have been using the K-r for about a year now and haven't had any problems whatsoever. The camera is reliable, fast and quite more robust, than I expected, the build quality is beyond the typical beginners DSLR. The image quality is just great. You must be aware about the following facts:
- IQ is very dependent on the automatic processing the website applies, to which you upload (rescaling for instance)
- you can influence the appearance of the images, by choosing the matching presets. Fpr web applications, you should usually choose the sRGB colour space. Than you can experiment with different settings in the K-r (saturation, vividness, sharpness etc.) instead of the standard presets. Pentax always has a very natural look out of the box, but you can choose your own preferences.

Ben
04-17-2012, 04:54 AM   #18
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
lonoise: If so, i can conclude that the color retention is quite nice, don't mind me asking, don't you feel that a few of them are little underexposed, did you do that on purpose ??

Ben_Edict: Hi Ben_Edict,Thanks very much for your comment. There's something i felt strange is that, i have seen plenty CANON and NIKON taken photos in Facebook. Canon seems to perform the best in terms of sharpness and color retention. Nikon seems to have faded in both color and sharpness. Probably this is just my observation but if its the fact then the variables seems goes to the cameras rather than the website right ?? (I have seen plenty of K5 in facebook too, it just perform so well but i have not seen much Kr that's why i need some help here)
04-17-2012, 08:57 AM   #19
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 33
I've had my K-r since last summer and it is my first Dslr also. I couldn't recommend it highly enough after using it. I did a ton of research and no other entry level camera comes close to it's features and build quality. Even the kit glass is more than decent.

In the 9 months I've had it, I haven't had any of the hardware issues you mentioned or any others for that matter.

I can't speak to facebook quality of the photos, but I believe the other guys are right, that IQ is more Facebook dependent, than camera dependent.

04-17-2012, 11:00 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,492
Just buy a big broken camera that looks good and a point and shoot. Then take pictures with the point and shoot, upload them to fb, and let people assume you use the big massive wow camera. That way you get the cred of being a pro and save a lot of money. And you can always claim the pictures look much better in full resolution without facebook messing it up.
04-17-2012, 11:24 AM   #21
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,841
I don't understand why you are so interested in pictures with no PP. PP is a part of photography. The Facebook IQ issue is totally FB dependent. Has nothing to do with which camera you use. They compress all pictures and they end up looking softer. I have never noticed much of a problem with colors on FB, though.

I have had my K-r since March 2011 and am overjoyed with it. It was my first DSLR and I have really enjoyed learning photography with this camera.

Just in case you are interested in an FB photos that have been post processed, here's my photo fan page:
https://www.facebook.com/LocosPhotos

Good luck with your choice!
04-17-2012, 11:31 AM - 1 Like   #22
Veteran Member
Philoslothical's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,723
QuoteOriginally posted by loco Quote
I have never noticed much of a problem with colors on FB, though.
Some sites, like imgur.com strip all the metadata from images in addition to recompressing them at a lower quality. This strips EXIF, and also colour profiles. If the jpeg is saved using AdobeRGB it will look washed out in Firefox and possibly other browsers when that profile is removed.

Easy way around this: Shoot or save your jpegs with sRGB if you are going to upload them to crappy sites that butcher the files. The camera offers both, and so should whatever editor one uses to process them.
04-17-2012, 11:51 AM   #23
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,841
QuoteOriginally posted by Philoslothical Quote
Some sites, like imgur.com strip all the metadata from images in addition to recompressing them at a lower quality. This strips EXIF, and also colour profiles. If the jpeg is saved using AdobeRGB it will look washed out in Firefox and possibly other browsers when that profile is removed.

Easy way around this: Shoot or save your jpegs with sRGB if you are going to upload them to crappy sites that butcher the files. The camera offers both, and so should whatever editor one uses to process them.
Thanks! I didn't know that. I guess the reason I have never had that issue is I always used sRGB. Good info, appreciate it!

04-17-2012, 11:55 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Philoslothical's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,723
@loco - Anytime. I found this out shortly after getting my K-r last year, trying to use imgur for posting stuff on reddit.

It's one of the reasons I use my own site and hosting for all my images. That, and I don't like the idea of granting rights to them in exchange for temporary hosting of them.
04-17-2012, 12:44 PM   #25
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 21
QuoteOriginally posted by suoersta Quote
lonoise: If so, i can conclude that the color retention is quite nice, don't mind me asking, don't you feel that a few of them are little underexposed, did you do that on purpose ??
For some reason I do like underexposed photos =) personal preference.
Works fine for me, as often it's easier to pull the details out from the shadows.
04-17-2012, 01:47 PM   #26
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
@loco the reason i asked about whether is it PP or not is because i want to know how well is the color and sharpness originally from SOOC posted on facebook as i don't think i have time to PP each and every single photo that i have taken. Anyway those photos of yours perform very well, did you do anything on the color intensity ?

Last edited by suoersta; 04-17-2012 at 01:54 PM.
04-17-2012, 04:41 PM   #27
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,841
QuoteOriginally posted by suoersta Quote
@loco the reason i asked about whether is it PP or not is because i want to know how well is the color and sharpness originally from SOOC posted on facebook as i don't think i have time to PP each and every single photo that i have taken. Anyway those photos of yours perform very well, did you do anything on the color intensity ?
Thanks, suoersta. Thing is, it depends on the settings that each individual picks for their jpg's. So even if an image is "straight out of the camera" it may not look just like an image you'd get straight out of the camera if you choose different settings.

In some of the photos I actually turned down the color saturation. It really depends on the colors and the lenses used. Some lenses are just very colorful, like the DA 15 Limited. Others, like the kit lens, need some help with saturation. I'm glad you like the pics.
04-17-2012, 07:37 PM   #28
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
But i guess you must be using 55-300 for those wildlife photos right ?? the color intensity are so nice ...that is what i am worried of when posted in fb. I mean normally when the photos posted on fb their color tends to fade away. Did you increase the color intensity of the wildlife album?
04-18-2012, 05:55 AM   #29
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,841
QuoteOriginally posted by suoersta Quote
But i guess you must be using 55-300 for those wildlife photos right ?? the color intensity are so nice ...that is what i am worried of when posted in fb. I mean normally when the photos posted on fb their color tends to fade away. Did you increase the color intensity of the wildlife album?
The close-up shots were taken with the Panagor macro lens (except the praying mantis). I increased the contrast because that lens is not very contrasty, however, I didn't mess with the color on those except for desaturating the pink azalea a bit in one shot.

The other shots were taken with the 55-300 and FA77 (swan). I don't recall messing with the color on those.
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, facebook, guys, hardware, iq, k-r, kr, pentax, pentax k-r, pentax kr, photos
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 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