[Imageman]

All the important stuff has been said I think, but I want to add a comment.


Its easy to think point and shooters are somehow less than photographers who adjust the image in post processing, but that's not the case.


David Hockney took photographs in some of his art, did he adjust in the darkroom the photographs he took, no he didn't.


Hockney produced photographs of unparalleled quality using point and shoot cameras.


Im not suggesting your an artist of the calibre of Hockney but your in good company. Allowing the camera to do everything allows you to compose the content of the image and do the important stuff.


What makes a good image is the technical excellence of the image. What makes a great image is the content, the stuff you point it at, and no amount of tweaking can make a good image great. But an image can be technically poor, slightly out of focus and a little dark or a little too bright and still be wonderful if the content and composition is right.


Never think, im just a point and shooter. think instead I take photographs.

[Oldbayrunner]

Getting back to your original dilemma, you should be able to press your Info button once or twice, if pressing it once brings up the status screen, until you see this menu,



scroll over to where it says raw or raw +. click ok, then scroll over to jpeg and select ok to change it back to Jpeg. Then you may need to press ok a few times to get back to the status screen.

PS that is explained on Page 192 and 193 of your manual. It does pay to take the time to learn the manual and what every thing is and does even if you don't plan to use any of it just in case you happen to hit a wrong button sequence sometime.

[builttospill]

I'm not sure how you arrived at this decision as I've never posted a list of the lenses in my collection. I can assure you I have many more than just the kit lenses that came with my camera. I began "dabbling" in photography almost 50 years ago, so it's not like I don't know my way around what makes a good photograph, only that I don't know the in's and out's of DIGITAL manipulation.

Dewman
SW Idaho

I arrived at this decision when you posted a list of the lenses in your collection on the first page here:

As far as lenses, I'm using both "kit" lenses that came with my K2000, a DAL 18-55mm & a DAL 50-200mm plus I have a Pentax-M SMC f1.4/50mm, a Takumar f2.5/135mm, a Pentax-M SMC f4.5/80-200mm, a ProMaster f3.5-5.6, 28-80mm and a Sears f4/60-300mm Macro.

You asked for suggestions, and this is my #1 suggestion. It's purely my opinion but looking at the list above there isn't anything special there. One other thing to consider coming from film is the proper way to meter, as there are some differences. With film you expose for the shade, with digital in the sun (or bright areas of the composition).

---------- Post added 08-03-14 at 08:26 PM ----------

Are you sure a DSLR (even beginners) was the right camera choice for you?

From Dewman's posts, it appears he's not a stranger to SLRs or photography, just new to digital so we may not be asking the correct questions. A mobile device certainly isn't going to give the OP the contrast and saturation they're looking for.

[Dewman]

I arrived at this decision when you posted a list of the lenses in your collection on the first page here:

You asked for suggestions, and this is my #1 suggestion. It's purely my opinion but looking at the list above there isn't anything special there. One other thing to consider coming from film is the proper way to meter, as there are some differences. With film you expose for the shade, with digital in the sun (or bright areas of the composition).

---------- Post added 08-03-14 at 08:26 PM ----------



From Dewman's posts, it appears he's not a stranger to SLRs or photography, just new to digital so we may not be asking the correct questions. A mobile device certainly isn't going to give the OP the contrast and saturation they're looking for.

Show me some photos you've taken. Then let ME be the one to judge if YOU are the one I should be taking advice from. Fair enough?

Dewman
SW Idaho

[Imageman]

Hi Dewman,


I would urge you to post process, it needn't take long just a few moments and in my opinion, digital cameras cannot produce stunning images without it. I don't care whay people say about "getting it right in camera" theres no such thing and never has been.


As for my credentials.

[Sandy Hancock]

I too would urge you to shoot RAW, and accept that some post-processing will always be necessary. An analogy which an experienced photographer like you will understand:

Just like shooting film, the RAW file is your colour negative. Getting it right in the camera is really important, but for optimal results, post-processing is like having your own darkroom; you can push the film in the developing tank, you can select different contrast paper even monochrome if you like, you can vary the exposure and dodge and burn to raise the shadows and drop the highlights. You can do this with JPEGs, but RAW files give you much more latitude to do it well.

Shooting JPEG is a bit like sending your film to the local 5 minute lab, except that it is happening in the camera. You're letting a pre-set machine do most of the work for you, and you might not always be happy with the result.

[Giklab]

Just wondering, in these 5 pages, did anyone at all tell the OP to set the JPEG processing to Bright and kick the satiration and contrast to the max?

[Dewman]

Some of MY credentials, shot with "not very special" lenses and a lowly K2000. I'm new to digital photography, NOT to photography! And yes, I AM doing some PP as well as have my camera input set where I get the best results possible for the situation at hand.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[Dewman]

Perhaps some more? Just because I ask a lot of questions about the digital side of photography does not mean I don't have a handle on composition, subject matter, lighting, selective focus or artistic creativity. I would like to think that after 50 years, I'm a little more than a "point and shoot" photographer.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm pretty sure most of us realised your abilities were well beyond the point and shoot stage. There's no need to get defensive.

If it hasn't already been pointed out, the K2000/K-m is a five year old entry-level DSLR. Sensor resolution and dynamic range, and the in-camera jpeg engines and options for customisation, have evolved at least three generations since then.

Just like it took a while to get to your level of expertise in film photography, it will take time to get the best out of the digital medium. Have patience (with yourself, and us), and consider giving RAW a chance.

[Dewman]

Hi Dewman,


I would urge you to post process, it needn't take long just a few moments and in my opinion, digital cameras cannot produce stunning images without it. I don't care whay people say about "getting it right in camera" theres no such thing and never has been.


As for my credentials.

I agree with you as far as "getting it right in camera," with a caveat. I ALWAYS try to get the composition right "in camera" as opposed to severe cropping in PP. I think my results speak for themselves. Same with the lighting and selective focus. I can control a lot of the contrast by using the correct lighting or waiting for the right time of day for the shot. I have the contrast and saturation bumped up a little "in camera," and add or subtract whatever it takes to satisfy me in PP. Being able to make all these adjustments after the fact is such a wonderful advantage over the old film and darkroom days. I wouldn't go back for a million bucks!

Dewman
SW Idaho

---------- Post added 08-04-14 at 03:02 AM ----------

I'm pretty sure most of us realised your abilities were well beyond the point and shoot stage. There's no need to get defensive.

If it hasn't already been pointed out, the K2000/K-m is a five year old entry-level DSLR. Sensor resolution and dynamic range, and the in-camera jpeg engines and options for customisation, have evolved at least three generations since then.

Just like it took a while to get to your level of expertise in film photography, it will take time to get the best out of the digital medium. Have patience (with yourself, and us), and consider giving RAW a chance.

Sandy, perhaps you should go back and read some of the comments I have received. How could one NOT be somewhat defensive? Point and shoot, indeed! I'm on a very fixed income and I simply cannot afford a newer, more sophisticated camera, so I'll just continue to plod along with my out-dated, old-hat, 5th generation, less-than-optimum dynamic range K2000 and whistle a happy tune.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[TER-OR]

I'll just add that getting your exposure as close to optimal in camera is always desirable. However, there are a lot of times when the camera chooses the wrong thing to meter on, and it's not the end of the world. Photography has always been three parts - your "eye," the film, and the camera (operation). Negatives aren't photographs, they frequently needed a little adjustment during development. That's what post processing is. If you didn't get exposure right, no worries, the PP tools are outstanding and the data from that sensor is astonishing.

I'd spend money on a program like Lightroom and keep using your K2000 for a while. Then eventually you can look for a used K5 series camera if you still think you're missing something. I did that when I moved up from my K10 because I was missing too many shots in the twilight of early morning and evening. (I bought new, not used but have not been tempted to upgrade since). Lightroom processing RAW files has rescued so many shots I can't begin to explain how amazing it can be. Even over-exposed images which I wouldn't have thought worth salvaging have been very good. That's all because the camera metered on the brightest or darkest part of the scene - I suppose I should use center-weighted more frequently.

If you're in a controlled situation it's not hard to get proper exposure. If you're in the field chasing bees and butterflies or trying to track dark dogs running in the field on a bright day there's no guarantee you'll get all the scene correct.

[Sagitta]

Dewman, one thing I would look at (if you haven't already) is acquiring a hood for your lenses. They sell cheap Chinese rubber fold out lenses that screw on like a filter that work wonders. You can buy one for each filter size you have and then just swap the hoods out from lens to lens as needed.

Don't rely on the built-in slide-out hoods that a lot of the old lenses have - those were designed with a full frame SLR in mind. The cropped sensors of the modern digital cameras don't rely on the same math for blocking light (the angles are all different), so you need something a bit wider and deeper than the days of yore.

I discovered this first hand last year while doing a Single-in monthly challenge (strongly recommend it for you, its fun!) while working with one of my old manual lenses.

I received the hood two thirds through the month and you could immediately see the difference in the before and after shots. I rarely go without these days simply because they save a lot of time and annoyance in post since they help beat down a lot of aberrations and help with contrast immensely.

[Dewman]

Dewman, one thing I would look at (if you haven't already) is acquiring a hood for your lenses. They sell cheap Chinese rubber fold out lenses that screw on like a filter that work wonders. You can buy one for each filter size you have and then just swap the hoods out from lens to lens as needed.

Don't rely on the built-in slide-out hoods that a lot of the old lenses have - those were designed with a full frame SLR in mind. The cropped sensors of the modern digital cameras don't rely on the same math for blocking light (the angles are all different), so you need something a bit wider and deeper than the days of yore.

I discovered this first hand last year while doing a Single-in monthly challenge (strongly recommend it for you, its fun!) while working with one of my old manual lenses.

I received the hood two thirds through the month and you could immediately see the difference in the before and after shots. I rarely go without these days simply because they save a lot of time and annoyance in post since they help beat down a lot of aberrations and help with contrast immensely.

Jody, every lens I own has a hood. Every single one. It's ususally the first thing I do when acquiring a lens, including the ones with build-in ones. I've always considered them it very cheap insurance against lens damage in addition to the obvious advantage. I think if you review my photos, the contrast issue has been resolved, thanks to continued experimentation with the camera, it's internal settings and in PP. Thanks for the advice.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[D4rknezz]

Hi Dewman,

I know that you've got the problem solved. I would just like to interest you in using raw - especially with an older camera. Basically, by shooting Jpeg - you are allowing the camera to apply the PP for you, and the k2000 is an older camera - i am not sure i'll trust it to do any jpeg for me. I am going to guess that the two cameras you own probably have different firmware (software) installed in them, which may be why the results are a little different.

When shooting raw, you'll get even less contrast, but your PP options becomes more available. And i do not believe that shooting raw is something that is terribly complicated - as some here seems to be convinced about.

If you are adamant in shooting Jpeg, then the camera brand/choice becomes more important, as you simply have to find a manufacturer that does their JPEG the way you like it.