[stevebrot]

For raw shooting you probably want to select the "Natural" jpeg mode, disable any digital filters, disable CA, distortion, vignetting, and diffraction correction.

Doing so may change initial import settings when using PDCU, but most other RAW converters are not savvy to the hints in the Pentax exif. White balance is the main exception. Adobe products and most other vendor offerings will honor the auto white balance as passed in the exif.


Steve

[asp1880]

Highlight correction on the K3 has On, Off, and Auto settings. I usually leave mine in Auto. Especially in very harsh Australian light, it seems the best policy. Does anyone have any insights into how the Auto mode works, and how it differs from On? Presumably it's based on the brightness histogram in some way, but I would have thought On would do this as well.

I believe that auto highlight/shadow protection works by the camera assessing scene contrast using the new highres light meter. If some contrast metric is higher than some threshold, highlight and/or shadow protection is engaged.

You can experiment by setting P mode and iso and highlight protection to auto and point the camera at different scenes. When it chooses 200 ISO, highlight protection is on.

Regards,
--Anders.

[Na Horuk]

Doing so may change initial import settings when using PDCU, but most other RAW converters are not savvy to the hints in the Pentax exif.

I meant it should be "natural" so that the preview jpeg and histogram are closest to the actual raw file - since the raw files typically have lower contrast and saturation than the developed jpegs. Of course, the main problems are that the histogram is not truly of the raw data, and that the camera LCD is not calibrated, and that the preview jpeg, even if "natural" is still not exactly the same as the raw data.
And about the highlight correction.. I really wish someone from Pentax would explain exactly how it works and what it does.

[stevebrot]

And about the highlight correction.. I really wish someone from Pentax would explain exactly how it works and what it does.

Trade secrets


Steve

[LensBeginner]

Trade secrets


Steve

Yep, I suspect...
However, not a feature one should lose his sleep about... the same (or better) result can probably be achieved manually...

[stevebrot]

Of course, the main problems are that the histogram is not truly of the raw data, and that the camera LCD is not calibrated, and that the preview jpeg, even if "natural" is still not exactly the same as the raw data.

Good points. The histogram is based on the preview jpeg and the rear LCD has characteristics closer to that of a smart phone display than of a decent monitor. The preview JPEG should reflect the camera JPEG settings and the RAW image...well, that is up to you. Import them into Lightroom (or whatever) with a flat preset and the initial screen display will be dull. Import with a vibrant preset and you will get...

FWIW, there is a significant difference in RAW interpretation between convertor vendors.


Steve

[LensBeginner]

*snip*
FWIW, there is a significant difference in RAW interpretation between convertor vendors.

Steve

I don't see that as a huge issue...
I mean, luminance values are luminance values.
Then there's a lengthy process (on which you have your say because you can process RAWs as you see fit, play with sliders, set parameters etc.) and the output is the same (let's say 8bit jpeg).
The interpretation of in-camera settings is only a baseline, a placeholder if you will, waiting for you to decide what you want to do with the picture.
WB, sharpness, vividness... it's all things you luckily have control on when developing (and it's one of the things of digital photography I really LOVE! )

Having an accurate histogram based on the RAW, OTOH, would be hugely beneficial... no more guesswork as to which "blinkies" are recoverable and which are not...

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Trade secrets


Steve

You've got that exactly right. Early reviews of the various Highlight Compensation implementations consistently indicated that Pentax had the most-sophisticated and effective management. Pentax old-tech purists - most of whom never gave the setting a fair trial - dismissed it as a pure gimmick. AFAIK, never has a single user who has extensively tested it gone on to say they prefer not use it. It is best used in AUTO, and is flawless in that it is never implemented unless needed (assuming you are using a decent RAW converter designed to recognize the setting). The roll-off applied is at least as good as anything I can accomplish with manual adjustments. In my testing, HC does not cause any noticeable shutter lag; not like JPEG filters or lens correction which are huge drags.

Only those who really don't mind blown highlights would skip its use.

[phoenixvision]

Only those who really don't mind blown highlights would skip its use.

It all seems to boil down to this in the end.....

[Spodeworld]

It was in the K3 review by dpreview

"Unlike Highlight Correction, Shadow Correction doesn't make any adjustment to the Raw file. This, in turn, means that the level of Shadow Correction can equally be applied after you've shot the image. You can therefore reprocess a Raw file in the camera with brightened shadows and achieve the same results."


Pentax K-3 Review: Digital Photography Review

Hmmmmm.... thanks, that's interesting.....So then shadow correction is more of a post process? Was the review here in the forum?