Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-14-2010, 12:34 PM   #1
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,765
Why are PPīd pics better from PC than from my K200D?

I should start by saying that I am not a fan of post-processing on a computer, though I like the RAW & jpeg processing available on my K200D, in fact I wish it could do more. I do not keep RAW files once I have a jpeg Iīm happy with. My most common PP is adjusting ISO, as my K200D likes to underexpose, as does itīs principal partner in crime the Tamron 17-50. I have usually done this on the camera itself but have recently realised that the expose, the dynamic range & even the detail are better when processed on the computer. I do this either with the Silkypix-based software that came with the camera or with GIMP.

Often, I find that the resultant jpeg is much better even just opening the DNG and saving - without doing anything! DR in particular can be increased massively by doing this, compared to out-of-camera jpegs.

Why is this?

11-14-2010, 12:43 PM   #2
Pentaxian
eccs19's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lisle, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,504
I don't know the K2000D, so I can't give you a step by step, but there should be setting in the menu of the camera so you can adjust how much saturation you want, how much sharpening, contrast, etc. You may just have to play with the settings to find a combination that is to your liking. I imagine you should be able to get something that's close. As for doing it on your computer, most software just has more adjustments that you can change, so it maybe something the software is doing that the in camera processor just can't do.

One other point, if your camera constantly underexposes, you can just adjust your exposure compensation so the camera will automatically adjust for the dark images your getting.

Hope this helps.
11-14-2010, 12:44 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
...
Why is this?
Probably simply because the PC uses much more processing power and time. The camera cannot afford as much for decent fps and battery consumption (at a reasonable price, anyway).
11-14-2010, 12:57 PM   #4
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,333
Firstly, any JPEG settings you have on the camera is reliant on having the right exposure to look decent. Secondly, the minor adjustments done from a RAW image even by default on your RAW converter will at least attempt to optimise the look of the photo even before you've started working on the photo.

You'll find with PP, you can transform some of your images from good to great.

11-14-2010, 02:09 PM   #5
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,765
Original Poster
Thanks for the replies, but I still donīt understand it. Exp comp only works if the over or under exposure is consistent, which with the Tamron it isnīt. I have the camera set up and have modified the jpeg parameters for many of the pre-sets, so that the photos look great on the LCD, but on the computer theyīre poor, and what should be exactly the same processing parameters bring much better results on the computer than in the camera.
11-14-2010, 02:43 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Fries's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gauw
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,217
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Thanks for the replies, but I still donīt understand it. Exp comp only works if the over or under exposure is consistent, which with the Tamron it isnīt. I have the camera set up and have modified the jpeg parameters for many of the pre-sets, so that the photos look great on the LCD, but on the computer theyīre poor, and what should be exactly the same processing parameters bring much better results on the computer than in the camera.
Perhaps you have your camera set to a different colorspace than the computer?
11-14-2010, 02:47 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Thanks for the replies, but I still donīt understand it. Exp comp only works if the over or under exposure is consistent, which with the Tamron it isnīt. I have the camera set up and have modified the jpeg parameters for many of the pre-sets, so that the photos look great on the LCD, but on the computer theyīre poor, and what should be exactly the same processing parameters bring much better results on the computer than in the camera.
The RAW -> JPEG conversion always has a set of parameters where 'doing nothing' results in using the default parameters (whatever they might be). I suspect that setting nominally same parameters with the Pentax PC software might very well have quite different results from in-camera conversion as the underlying algorithms are different; in-camera I think much of this is implemented in hardware for speed, which probably means cutting a few corners to keep the hardware reasonably 'simple'. OTOH I personally find the JPEGs from my k-x pretty good.

One thing that could affect things quite a bit is different calibration of the camera vs. your computer display.
11-14-2010, 07:33 PM   #8
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,333
I can also attest that default settings on my RAW conversion programme (ACR) can sometimes be *way* off the mark. I resign to the fact that computers can't be right all the time.

Shoot for shadows and process for highlights is the premise I go by, and it works just about everytime. Then on your RAW conversion programme, adjust your exposure sliders according to your intended results. You'd be surprised how well the image turns out after manually adjusting the sliders away from the erroneus default settings...

11-18-2010, 06:54 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,765
Original Poster
I think Iīm going to stop shooting RAW + JPEG & move to just RAW. That way I wonīt be able to take the lazy option of using SOOC jpegs, Iīll have to process them, at least minimally, on the computer.
11-18-2010, 09:13 AM   #10
Pentaxian
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,647
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I think Iīm going to stop shooting RAW + JPEG & move to just RAW. That way I wonīt be able to take the lazy option of using SOOC jpegs, Iīll have to process them, at least minimally, on the computer.
There is no reason to shoot RAW+jpg, unless for some reason you want to send an image directly from your camera to ....someplace else.

It is easy enough to simply "extract a jpg" using the Pentax software (one of the few things it is good for) in less than a minute per SD card, or actually convert the RAW files in a batch with only a few clicks, and subsequently tweak those that need it.
11-19-2010, 07:12 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,765
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
There is no reason to shoot RAW+jpg, unless for some reason you want to send an image directly from your camera to ....someplace else.

It is easy enough to simply "extract a jpg" using the Pentax software (one of the few things it is good for) in less than a minute per SD card, or actually convert the RAW files in a batch with only a few clicks, and subsequently tweak those that need it.
Iīve yet to check if the Pentax software or GIMP have batch processing, but if Iīm going to forsake jpegs entirely Iīll need to look into it.
11-19-2010, 10:59 AM   #12
Pentaxian
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,647
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Iīve yet to check if the Pentax software or GIMP have batch processing, but if Iīm going to forsake jpegs entirely Iīll need to look into it.
I use the Pentax Photo Browser to extract jpgs for comparing near-dupes in a more-convenient viewer, sometimes deleting or moving files, and making the exif data list. Elements 6 for actually processing, though. I went RAW-only a couple years back, and have never missed not having a jpg on the card.
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, computer, jpeg, k200d, photography, photoshop
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting used to the K200D - SoCalEuro2008 Meet. LOTs of Pics... JETninja Post Your Photos! 1 05-11-2014 08:33 PM
[K200D] Pics from half a day at Shedd Edward B. Post Your Photos! 2 04-07-2009 07:23 AM
some pics from my first time with the K200d simonr23 Post Your Photos! 2 10-24-2008 07:56 PM
Post pics from your Pentax K200D TYOsborn Post Your Photos! 1 08-16-2008 08:28 AM
What are these pics? K200D? Tom M Pentax News and Rumors 2 01-09-2008 09:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 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