[BruceBanner]

This has been a very informative thread; much appreciated. Interestingly, it has given me a new appreciation of DCU5 now that I understand more about extracting vs save as, etc. I'm going to be using it as a first review/cull of my raw files (KP) because it allows me to leverage the power of custom images as a starting point, easily changing selections after the fact. IOW, I shoot "Bright" by default, and with DCU5, I can easily change to another custom image selection if needed. It's like working with in camera processing from the comfort of my laptop.

FastStone will show the Jpg Preview that will have whatever your camera settings had at the time. For example, if I am shooting RAW but I have 'Portrait' as my Custom Image mode, then that is what FastStone will display in review, only once you take the RAW off to LR or whatever will you 'lose' that.

My experience with DCU is pretty bad, slow and buggy (I closed panels down with the 'x' and couldn't get them back ).
You should try Fast Stone, I just culled in 20mins 1000 images down to 250, no importing and waiting, just SD card in the PC, click first image in Windows Explorer, opens FS super fast and off we go tagging the files we want to keep (or delete, up to you).

[rogerstg]

FastStone will show the Jpg Preview that will have whatever your camera settings had at the time

True, but there is no option that I can see to change custom image after the fact. I do most further processing with ACDSee, but often like the start from initial camera/DCU5 processing: often it's enough for casual family activities. My needs are pretty basic, tweaking light levels, colors, etc. I'm also not trying to sell anyone on ACDSee, I'm just used to it.

FastStone seems interesting and I especially like the default full screen view with menus appearing when hovering at the margins. I'm not sure I'll go further with it, though remain appreciative for what I've learned in this thread.

[BruceBanner]

True, but there is no option that I can see to change custom image after the fact. I do most further processing with ACDSee, but often like the start from initial camera/DCU5 processing: often it's enough for casual family activities. My needs are pretty basic, tweaking light levels, colors, etc. I'm also not trying to sell anyone on ACDSee, I'm just used to it.

FastStone seems interesting and I especially like the default full screen view with menus appearing when hovering at the margins. I'm not sure I'll go further with it, though remain appreciative for what I've learned in this thread.

Yeah I use LR and the Camera Profiles (Portrait, Landscape, Bright etc) if I want to turn my RAW towards looking like it was in camera at the time (at least I think that's what that part in LR does).

[pschlute]

Yeah I use LR and the Camera Profiles (Portrait, Landscape, Bright etc) if I want to turn my RAW towards looking like it was in camera at the time (at least I think that's what that part in LR does).

That is exactly what it does. But i have to say if you want your images to look exactly like the in-camera profiles, why are you bothering to shoot raw ?

[BruceBanner]

That is exactly what it does. But i have to say if you want your images to look exactly like the in-camera profiles, why are you bothering to shoot raw ?

Because I am at that place where I'm not sure I will stay RAW or toggle over to Jpg. Currently I use the RAW button on my K-1 and toggle between RAW and Jpg (writing to both SD cards). But there are times I hit the buffer in RAW and thus try and predict this and toggle out and into Jpg (such as during the wedding last week, AF.C bursting for flower girl, and then after her maid of honour, and then father and bride etc.

I'm getting my settings working so well in camera these days I'm starting to question just how much breathing space I need for editing, I mean it's not like you can't edit a Jpg!

Take for example this SOOC (not a complete SOOC, I mean I used the in camera raw development of the RAW file and added vignette from the Digital Filter, but really this is a SOOC, no LR or post processing on a computer whatsoever);



And now an edit of the same shot from the RAW file in LR;



Not that much better, if at all! And I think I could have easily driven the Jpg to look like this if I tried.

But the point is, I knew when I took the shot RAW from judging the back of the LCD screen at the time I had a nice shot, sometimes I don't want to spend time taking the RAW file off to LR and process it etc, just to make it look like it did at the time. But I can't shoot RAW+ it's just too slow for what I do. So it's nice to know you can get what you would have seen at the time on the back of the camera from a RAW file one way or another.

I really hope to move to a Jpg only kinda shooter (at least 90% of the time, there will always be the need for RAW such as landscapes etc), because by going Jpg i will reap a heap of benefits.

I have another event tomorrow (paid) which I will chicken out of shooting Jpg in and will stick to RAW, but after tomorrow I think I will force myself to go Jpg for awhile and see just how much I am punished for making that decision...

[pschlute]

I would suggest that as long as you get your WB setting correct at the get-go, and get your exposure correct, you would be fine. You take excellent pictures so I reckon you would be ok with a pinhole camera to be honest

Having said all that I use raw exclusively and have developed a workflow that works very well and quickly for me. Having a fast computer (with SSD) helps.

[BruceBanner]

I would suggest that as long as you get your WB setting correct at the get-go, and get your exposure correct, you would be fine. You take excellent pictures so I reckon you would be ok with a pinhole camera to be honest

Having said all that I use raw exclusively and have developed a workflow that works very well and quickly for me. Having a fast computer (with SSD) helps.

Thank you for the kind words Of course here you all mostly see my good stuff, I can still take my fair share of duds!

I dunno... there's just a certain attraction to shooting Jpg, never really worry about buffer any more, small file sizes, even LR loads and edits them quicker on my machine and a bit of WYSIWYG is kinda comforting to know at the time whether you're managing things properly. In the past I used to gasp at the image I caught back of the screen and mutter to myself "Ach... it's ok.. I'll sort that in post"

[marcusBMG]

Adding to this thread as I think it is a very pertinent one re using faststone. I have just been pondering exactly the issues discussed here. I have taken a bunch of comparitive pics, RAW dng, with a couple of adaptall lenses (28A 28-135mm, 40A 35-135mm) on my KS2, and looking at them side by side in FSIV got me wondering: what exactly am I looking at, presented in FSIV, and why does the loaded RAW file (by pressing A) look so bad?


My experience with faststone is as Arkav describes. The displayed "preview" images are full sized and processed. Actually I just had a look back at some K-r PEF images from 2013 and those display as full sized previews as well.

The suggestion that the in camera processing is producing a full sized preview to accomodate live view magnification seems a plausible one.
As far as my lens comparison goes, questions begging are:
1. is the processing that produces the jpg's consistent (enough) between lenses so there is a valid comparison?
2. How much is the comparison worth given that the processing produces much greater differences in the end results than the lenses?