[ytterbium]

P.S. A lot depends on the RAW software used.

E.g. a customized preset mentioned by Marc is not even possible with the converter availible to me. As well as switching between images in a folder, GUI batch conversion and other useful functionalities. Such details can increase the time from seconds to several (tens of) minutes for each photo.

[normhead]

Originally posted by georgis
Apparently you are right on this. But as a hobbyist I simply don't have that much time to kill sitting at my computer and fiddling with each and every image I shot over the weekend. i understand that there are peapole who earn for living with photography, and they have a luxury to kill whole 8 hours just PP their images. This is all OK. But me, I simply have 2 days over weekend and evenings after work. And not all of that time I can dedicate to my hobby. In the end, what is left is very little and I prefer to spend that time actually doing photography instead of sitting at computer ... again .

You need to learn to use the apple-shift-L in photoshop to do an "auto-levels". Great for 90% of your pictures.

I've noticed that Canon, Nikon and many point and shoots even pentax ones, have better post production values than a Pentax DSLR. What a Pentax DSLR is the cleanest possible shot with the most image detail possible. Usually when I take an image on my camera I get detail in highlights and shadows I wouldn't get with other systems. I can point you at least one magazine article that will demonstrate this.

I just read another article in this month's Photo Life called Never Shoot Auto Again, Avoiding Post Production by Avoiding Auto Modes.

The point here is, a DSLR is more complicated than a point and shoot. I can get just as good pictures from my point and shoot as I can from my DSLR, in fact even better if I use the auto settings on the DSLR. Unless you start understanding and using the extra control over exposure and depth of field you get with a DSLR, you're wasting your time even owning one. Point and Shoots are made for people who don't have time to learn to use a DSLR. They are designed to give you the best possible image on 90% of your shots. If you're not going to learn enough about your camera and PP to deal with the last 10% you're wasting a lot of time not owning a good point and shoot. One of the downsides of a more complicated camera is, you can actually get less than acceptable results by not understanding what you're doing. DSLRs aren't for everyone. And they don't guarantee you better images. They offer you the chance to learn to shoot better images. It's not a given.

[DanWeso]

You need to learn to use the apple-shift-L in photoshop to do an "auto-levels". Great for 90% of your pictures.

I've noticed that Canon, Nikon and many point and shoots even pentax ones, have better post production values than a Pentax DSLR. What a Pentax DSLR is the cleanest possible shot with the most image detail possible. Usually when I take an image on my camera I get detail in highlights and shadows I wouldn't get with other systems. I can point you at least one magazine article that will demonstrate this.

I just read another article in this month's Photo Life called Never Shoot Auto Again, Avoiding Post Production by Avoiding Auto Modes.

The point here is, a DSLR is more complicated than a point and shoot. I can get just as good pictures from my point and shoot as I can from my DSLR, in fact even better if I use the auto settings on the DSLR. Unless you start understanding and using the extra control over exposure and depth of field you get with a DSLR, you're wasting your time even owning one. Point and Shoots are made for people who don't have time to learn to use a DSLR. They are designed to give you the best possible image on 90% of your shots. If you're not going to learn enough about your camera and PP to deal with the last 10% you're wasting a lot of time not owning a good point and shoot. One of the downsides of a more complicated camera is, you can actually get less than acceptable results by not understanding what you're doing. DSLRs aren't for everyone. And they don't guarantee you better images. They offer you the chance to learn to shoot better images. It's not a given.

Not only am I having difficulties with the relevance of this comment in regards to the OP question on camera processed jpg's, but how exactly did you come to the assumption/conclusion that the OP has no interest in learning his camera or PP? It seems to me that you are saying that people who don't pp should not be using dslr's. Now that is pure ignorance on your part.

[audiobomber]

P.S. A lot depends on the RAW software used.

That's the key. I've tried raw conversion using Adobe softwares, and they don't compare to the detail and lush look I get from the software Pentax supplies with the camera. I tried Silkypix Pro and it does as well as Pentax Photo Lab, but I didn't like the interface. The new DCR4 software from Pentax is far more flexible that the older PPB + Photo Lab. I do my most of my processing and conversion with DCU4. I use other programs for finishing work if needed.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 06-22-2010 at 05:01 AM.

[ytterbium]

Unfortunately none of what you mention works for Linux.

[Marc Sabatella]

Not sure what in particular you mean when you none of it works on Linux, but if I were on Linux, I'd probably be using Bibble, which does pretty much everything anyone has mentioned on this thread.

[simico]

Unfortunately none of what you mention works for Linux.

Pentax Photo Lab (out of the box with no effort) and DCU4 (needs some tweaking) runs in Wine.
However I use Bibble, I've created my custom preset which gives result as close to PPL/DCU as possible, so most of my photos don't need any tweaking. Raw Therapee also gives good results, just had to disable autolevel and slightly modify the tone curve.

[georgis]

I just read another article in this month's Photo Life called Never Shoot Auto Again, Avoiding Post Production by Avoiding Auto Modes.

This sound like a good read. Though, I don't think I can get my hand on this magazine any time soon.

There are two conclusions I have come to reading comments to this thread.

1) My frustration with shooting RAW most probably is due to lacking knowledge and skills with PP software (which in turn is caused by lack of time). Basically, my inability to come up with own presets which later-on could be applied to multiple images and decrease time for PP.

2) I am frustrated that PP (I am not talking here about PP that happens automatically in-camera after shutter release) has such an important role in photography, or more precisely on the end result. I will try to deal with that. This is my problem.

3) I am still willing to do 99% of the end picture in-camera, e.g. correctly choose WB, exposere, framing etc. and not rely on RAW to correct mistakes that should not be there in the first place.

[simico]

Georgis, not long ago I was in the same boat as you. I was shooting jpg because most of the time I was satisfied with it and I had the same frustration with raw as you seem to have now. I also don't have much free time and don't want to waste that little time in front of my pc (working 9-10 hours with it is enough), I want and try to have everything (exposure, wb, framing, etc) right before pressing the shutter release button.

What's changed that now I shoot raw? I found a good app that has the features and works in way that I like, and I could create a nice preset which gives similar tones and colors as the camera/DCU jpg. So now I don't really spend more time in front of the pc than before, the only difference in time is a few seconds to (automatically) import the raw files to my catalog and a few minutes to generate resized jpgs for web & email use. So after auto import I quickly review the images one by one (the same way as I did with jpgs before), if one needs adjustments then I either quickly make those (like enabling noise reduction, correcting wb, etc) or mark the image for later processing (if I don't have the time or mood to PP it), after reviewing I select all and generate low resolution (1200 pixels on longer side) jpgs with one keypress.

For most of my photos my default preset gives good result and I don't need to change anything. Why using raw is good for me: on high ISO photos I can apply noise reduction as needed and only on selected areas, I can correct some mistakes (no matter how I want and try to get it right in the camera, sometimes mistakes like accidentally dialing in exposure compensation can happen), with output batches it's just a keypress to generate different type of output images (low res jpg for web, full res jpg, full res tiff for printing, etc), I can have many versions of the same photo and apply different non-destructive image editing to each without manually creating copies of the master file, and many other small things.

I think if you could find an application that suits your needs and working style, and could create a preset that gives you good result then your opinion and experience would change and you'd probably never look back If not then that's ok too, raw is just an option that we either use or not use.

[audiobomber]

My frustration with shooting RAW most probably is due to lacking knowledge and skills with PP software (which in turn is caused by lack of time). Basically, my inability to come up with own presets which later-on could be applied to multiple images and decrease time for PP.

I mostly shoot raw, but I don't do any processing or even jpeg conversion most of the time. When I view the images I see the jpeg version, but they are still raw images. I only process the ones that I want to print, and the ones where I made a mistake (if they're salvageable and worth the effort). The reason I shoot in raw is that I can improve a photo or correct my errors more reliably than I can in jpeg. Raw does not necessarily require more time investment than jpeg.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'd add that if I didn't do so much concert shooting that virtually always requires PP to a degree where shooting RAW makes a *very* noticeable difference, and if had had software that allowed PP on JPEG to be as simple as it is for RAW (eg, non-destructive / parametric editors like Lightroom, Aperture, ACDSee Pro, Lightzone, Bibble, & Picasa), I'd never have bothered with RAW. Non-destructive / parametric processing was only widely available with RAW a few years ago, and that prompted the switch for me. But these days, more and more programs allow non-destructive editing for JPEG, finally making processing JPEG as easy (if not always as effective) as processing RAW. I suppose I could shoot RAW for concerts and JPEG at other times and probably not suffer much for it. I just woudn't really gain anything, either - a few dollars a year less disk space used and a couple mibnutes a day less computer processing time just isn't worth the hassle of constantly remembering to switch formats and risk being in JPEG for a shot where RAW would really have helped.

[ytterbium]

Pentax Photo Lab (out of the box with no effort) and DCU4 (needs some tweaking) runs in Wine.
However I use Bibble, I've created my custom preset which gives result as close to PPL/DCU as possible, so most of my photos don't need any tweaking. Raw Therapee also gives good results, just had to disable autolevel and slightly modify the tone curve.

Didn't knew that (PPL runs on Wine). Thanks for letting me know.
I wonder if linux version of Therapee also crashes on pentax files (tried: runs just fine). Unfortunately it aint in repositories.

[GregK8]

Didn't knew that (PPL runs on Wine). Thanks for letting me know.
I wonder if linux version of Therapee also crashes on pentax files (tried: runs just fine). Unfortunately it aint in repositories.

I've got it running, but I get some weird screen tearing which makes it kinda unusable. I have an nVidia video card, so i'm not sure if that is a factor.

[simico]

I've got it running, but I get some weird screen tearing which makes it kinda unusable. I have an nVidia video card, so i'm not sure if that is a factor.

I have a (now) old nVidia 6600GTS video card, no screen issues on openSUSE 11.2. Might be the driver version or Wine on your pc? I'm not using the latest nVidia driver - if it works fine then I don't update it just because a newer version is available.

[georgis]

What's changed that now I shoot raw? I found a good app that has the features and works in way that I like, and I could create a nice preset which gives similar tones and colors as the camera/DCU jpg.

Simico, I was just wondering on what application did you settle?
Thanks!