[wadge22]

Back when I used to shoot JPEG, my main negative issues came from white balance (this was on a K01). One thing that helped me was to try and remember to do the manual white balance procedure whenever I could, especially at the start of each shooting session, or going inside to outside or vice versa.

If you're not familiar with the manual white balance procedure, it'd be worth looking it up (it's not exactly intuitive). I don't have a K3iii, but I just checked on my K70 and K1, and it's about the same as it used to be on the K01: you press whichever direction key has "WB" on it, find the setting for manual white balance (the icon is a box with two little triangles underneath it),point the lens at something white and press the shutter button (without pressing the OK/middle button first, which would send you back into shooting mode and interrupt the process), and then press the OK. It's useful to have a white card (or just a clean sheet of very white paper) with your camera stuff to use for this, in case there's nothing white available. Also, I see on my K70 and K1 that they now allow you to save 3 different manual settings, which is pretty handy (and I don't remember that from the K01).

Like I said, I used to be in the habit of doing this before every photo session, or whenever I noticed the light changing. It helped me be more confident about how my colors would come out. Of course sometimes I didn't prefer the results of that process, especially if it killed the 'gold' from 'golden hour,' but since I was in the habit of checking my white balance and thinking about it, it wasn't tough to choose an option other than manual WB in those instances.

[gatorguy]

When it took many years for the K-3 Mark III to come out I started looking at other options, including Fuji. Every spec sheet and every review highlighted their film emulations, and my reaction was "why?" They're selling people on the idea that the camera has built-in versions of the presets you can get in any decent RAW development software. Why not just hit the dropdown to pick a film emulation that best fits your intent when going through everything in post?

Obviously a lot of people don't work in post, it's all jpegs so that's a selling point for them. It's just way outside my preferences and experience. I think I've used a jpeg preset style on my Pentax cameras 3-4 times in 10 years. Those jpeg menus are like vestigial organs, sitting unused and never accessed for years at a time until I annoyingly stumble upon them by accident.

I'm of the same mind. When I got back into photography a few years ago with a K-50 it was all JPEG and all Auto all of the time. It did not take long to notice the images posted here that I thought were most impressive weren't generally shot as JPEGS, nor on Auto. It works, and can work well much of the time. A large percentage of folks have no desire to post-process anyway, or happy to just automate it with one of the very nice 3rd party programs (colorful skies anyone?).

I'm just far more anal about the look of my images (sometimes to my detriment), and if I believe they are worth displaying then they're worth my time in crafting the best presentation. I simply file 50% of the images I take as OK but not feeling 'em at the moment, and another 40% are just deleted as poor compositions, duplicates, missed settings, or not as interesting as I thought they might be. That leaves 10% as bonafide keepers, and those are worth a little extra time from me devoted to making them shinier. Even then some of those get filed away.

[BruceBanner]

When it took many years for the K-3 Mark III to come out I started looking at other options, including Fuji. Every spec sheet and every review highlighted their film emulations, and my reaction was "why?" They're selling people on the idea that the camera has built-in versions of the presets you can get in any decent RAW development software. Why not just hit the dropdown to pick a film emulation that best fits your intent when going through everything in post?

Obviously a lot of people don't work in post, it's all jpegs so that's a selling point for them. It's just way outside my preferences and experience. I think I've used a jpeg preset style on my Pentax cameras 3-4 times in 10 years. Those jpeg menus are like vestigial organs, sitting unused and never accessed for years at a time until I annoyingly stumble upon them by accident.

The 'Why' is has many answers. I can share a couple here;

1) With some skill and care, selecting a good 'filmsim recipe' can result in something 90% to what you envision in post. This direct in the field relay can impact heavily on other basic cameras settings (like the exposure triangle variables) to getting exactly the look you want. Because we run off an EVF there is a WYSIWYG approach. Of course you can get this shooting RAW as well (because with cameras we only ever see the Jpg previews anyway), but it can be a very powerful 'in the field tool'.

2) Quick turn around on jobs. 10-15secs/file in post to polish what was already super and graded to taste already.

It makes good business sense.

You just have to know what kind of work and jobs you'll do that the client will be happy with 'jpgs'.

No, this is not a replacement for RAW, there will always be a time for RAW, SOOC vs RAW is the daftest of arguments imo, it shouldn't even be an argument or discussion point, period. But I digress, that is the Fuji world, this is Pentax and I like to encourage users to get familiar with their Pentax in camera Jpg capabilities because it often surprises a lot of users just how wide, varied and artistically interesting the results can be, saving people time in post and enjoying direct in the field feedback of their shoot. If Fuji can derive pleasing in camera results, can we Pentaxians also? I think so.

[pepperberry farm]

so, yeah, this topic did devolve into us vs them, again ...

the moderators should lock this...

[gatorguy]

No, this is not a replacement for RAW, there will always be a time for RAW, SOOC vs RAW is the daftest of arguments imo, it shouldn't even be an argument or discussion point, period. But I digress, that is the Fuji world, this is Pentax and I like to encourage users to get familiar with their Pentax in camera Jpg capabilities because it often surprises a lot of users just how wide, varied and artistically interesting the results can be, saving people time in post and enjoying direct in the field feedback of their shoot. If Fuji can derive pleasing in camera results, can we Pentaxians also? I think so.

Absolutely correct Eddy. JPEG would fill the needs for the majority of shooters IMO. FWIW I have a full complement of film emulations available to me via DxO and Adobe, dozens in fact, but using them has never grown on me. We all eventually arrive at our own preferred 'look' with any luck and our happy way of getting there.

But I agree with you that if you're doing a paid shoot, and turnaround with good results with a reasonable amount of effort is first and foremost then SOOC JPEGS, even if a tiny bit of tweaking is needed on a few in post, is the way to go. Your Fujis have a nice set of emulations built-in and once accustomed to the expectations from each it's no doubt a very efficient way of working. I've done a number of paid events in raw, but even then I end up creating a couple of presets (or using one's I already built) and batch processing most of them. Only a few get special attention. WAAAY too much work to specifically tweak processing for each. That's essentially what you're accomplishing out-of-camera with JPEGS and profiles and skipping the step of batch processing off camera.

As long as there's an in-camera JPEG profile that matches my intent it would save time and turnaround. You gave good advice that I'll keep in mind Eddy.

[gatorguy]

so, yeah, this topic did devolve into us vs them, again ...

the moderators should lock this...

No need for it to be, they're all just photos taken by photographers with personal expectations and different use cases.

I don't think it's the intent of any thread contributor to make it an Us vs.Them which of course wouldn't benefit anyone. I personally know Fuji users who only shoot raw and would not even consider the in-camera film emulations, just as I personally know Pentax users who have no interest whatsoever in raw and are exceptionally happy with their camera's JPEG profiles. It's all good, and a respectful discussion in my opinion, and the reasons for certain decisions do make sense in view of the explanations. There's no right way or wrong way, just your way.

[reh321]

The 'Why' is has many answers. I can share a couple here;

1) With some skill and care, selecting a good 'filmsim recipe' can result in something 90% to what you envision in post. This direct in the field relay can impact heavily on other basic cameras settings (like the exposure triangle variables) to getting exactly the look you want. Because we run off an EVF there is a WYSIWYG approach. Of course you can get this shooting RAW as well (because with cameras we only ever see the Jpg previews anyway), but it can be a very powerful 'in the field tool'.

2) Quick turn around on jobs. 10-15secs/file in post to polish what was already super and graded to taste already.

My ‘why’ was because of my experience.

In the age of film {for me, 1969-2007}, I shot mostly slides, and matched my photography to the limitations of the film in my camera.
I eventually shot almost exclusively Kodachrome, but one of the first things I learned was that E-m and K-n rendered subjects differently.
In fact, I think I still have a couple slides around when I changed between “EX” and “K” and photographed the same sight with each.
I now expect a consistent rendering, and cannot imagine wanting to change rendering.

[rogerstg]

so, yeah, this topic did devolve into us vs them, again ...

People sharing perspectives is not "us vs them." It's helpful to many, including the OP and interesting to others. We should all learn to tolerate other points of view.

Staying on point for the OP, I only shoot RAW, because for me, it's simpler. I don't need to anticipate the tweaks before the shot and can concentrate on composition, exposure, AF, etc., without concern for jpg processing settings. I work on a computer, so it's nothing for me to transfer photo's, cull and tag them, and possibly process one or two that I might share or print.

[Rondec]

Options are a wonderful thing. The reality is that most people choose something that works for them and then just shoot with that. If you are an out of camera jpeg shooter then you use Natural or Bright and just go with that, possibly with tweaks. That fact that you have Monochrome or Film Reversal or Satobi as options doesn't matter as you aren't typically switching jpeg settings between images.

(I will mention that if you choose the wrong setting sometimes you can't get your image back if you are shooting jpeg. This is not usually under sharpening or something like that, but rather the garish colors that you can get with landscape or some of the shifted colors you get with bleach bypass.)

The same is true for Lightroom (or RAW processor of choice). You "can" apply any preset in the world to your images, but instead you create something that works for you -- say applies a little bump to shadows, drops highlights, adds some contrast, and clarity and use that blanketly on all of your images. It doesn't take much time at all either way.

If you really are adjusting what jpeg settings you are using in camera that takes time too, but the same thing is true in post processing.

[ThorSanchez]

I have spent plenty of time sitting at my computer as it is; I see no reason to spend any more time doing what my camera could do automatically. It is completely outside my preference and experience. I do join you is asking “why?” of the Fuji settings though; I put all that behind me when I put film behing me.

I will often shoot in situations with high dynamic range. I shoot sports in broad daylight, there's no waiting around for golden hour or the perfect light. The game is happening right now, and it's really bright. Sometimes players will be backlit, sometimes part of the field is in shadow because of trees or stands. So a lot of changing conditions, you have to underexpose (or with the Mark III expose for highlights) so as to not blow out the brights.

Can you set up the internal jpeg engine to compensate for that adequately? I'll admit to being largely ignorant of the jpeg settings. Can you automatically pull up shadows? Suppress highlights? I often find myself with a RAW that's underexposed by quite a lot since there are bright white clouds that would otherwise be completely blown out, so step one with my RAWs is to pull up shadows, then perhaps cut highlights and/or do highlight reconstruction. Maybe even pull up exposre a half a stop or more depending on where the play was happening. Do you think the Pentax jpeg settings could be manipulated in a way that my situation can produce useable SOOC jpegs? My assumption has always been no, but I haven't really tried.

Obviously sideline photographers do a lot of jpeg shooting, send the results quickly straight back for review and publishing, so I guess it works. Seems like it would be hard to set that up for changing lighting.

[Rondec]

I will often shoot in situations with high dynamic range. I shoot sports in broad daylight, there's no waiting around for golden hour or the perfect light. The game is happening right now, and it's really bright. Sometimes players will be backlit, sometimes part of the field is in shadow because of trees or stands. So a lot of changing conditions, you have to underexpose (or with the Mark III expose for highlights) so as to not blow out the brights.

Can you set up the internal jpeg engine to compensate for that adequately? I'll admit to being largely ignorant of the jpeg settings. Can you automatically pull up shadows? Suppress highlights? I often find myself with a RAW that's underexposed by quite a lot since there are bright white clouds that would otherwise be completely blown out, so step one with my RAWs is to pull up shadows, then perhaps cut highlights and/or do highlight reconstruction. Maybe even pull up exposre a half a stop or more depending on where the play was happening. Do you think the Pentax jpeg settings could be manipulated in a way that my situation can produce useable SOOC jpegs? My assumption has always been no, but I haven't really tried.

Obviously sideline photographers do a lot of jpeg shooting, send the results quickly straight back for review and publishing, so I guess it works. Seems like it would be hard to set that up for changing lighting.

You do have some options with regard to bumping shadows and protecting highlights along with tweaking of sharpening, saturation, fine sharpening. Personally, I find that bumping shadows in camera is quicker to introduce noise and artifacts than doing it in Lightroom, not sure why. I also find that many of the settings with in camera jpeg adjustments are a bit heavy handed. +1 on sharpening is plenty for most images and +2 starts causing artifacts.

[reh321]

Staying on point for the OP, I only shoot RAW, because for me, it's simpler. I don't need to anticipate the tweaks before the shot and can concentrate on composition, exposure, AF, etc., without concern for jpg processing settings. I work on a computer, so it's nothing for me to transfer photo's, cull and tag them, and possibly process one or two that I might share or print.

Again, my experience was mostly with slide film, so it is simpler for me to consider the characteristics of the 'medium' while determining perspective, framing, focus, etc.
For me, I have worked at a computer enough that if I never see another keyboard and screen, it will be too soon; I read most of my email and surf here on my iPhone.
As an example of what I've done. I'll show a photo I took in 1973; the building has white siding - from this photo I learned that white siding requires more 'latitude' than slide film usually provides.

added: For many years, I underexposed slides and "lived with it", "lived with" darker skies, etc. Today I underexpose some JPEGs, secure in the knowledge that I can use "curves" to lighten the parts of the image that will be "just plain too dark". That is an ingrained part of my photographic thinking.

[Just1MoreDave]

I will often shoot in situations with high dynamic range. I shoot sports in broad daylight, there's no waiting around for golden hour or the perfect light. The game is happening right now, and it's really bright. Sometimes players will be backlit, sometimes part of the field is in shadow because of trees or stands. So a lot of changing conditions, you have to underexpose (or with the Mark III expose for highlights) so as to not blow out the brights.

Can you set up the internal jpeg engine to compensate for that adequately? I'll admit to being largely ignorant of the jpeg settings. Can you automatically pull up shadows? Suppress highlights? I often find myself with a RAW that's underexposed by quite a lot since there are bright white clouds that would otherwise be completely blown out, so step one with my RAWs is to pull up shadows, then perhaps cut highlights and/or do highlight reconstruction. Maybe even pull up exposre a half a stop or more depending on where the play was happening. Do you think the Pentax jpeg settings could be manipulated in a way that my situation can produce useable SOOC jpegs? My assumption has always been no, but I haven't really tried.

Obviously sideline photographers do a lot of jpeg shooting, send the results quickly straight back for review and publishing, so I guess it works. Seems like it would be hard to set that up for changing lighting.

This is how the Pentax Digital Camera Utility software is useful. You can take any RAW image that demonstrates a problem or style to emulate, load it in DCU5, and see what happens when you use the camera settings on it. With the right images to start with and an idea of the end goal, you can figure out whether the camera settings will work or not. It's like science.

[ThorSanchez]

This is how the Pentax Digital Camera Utility software is useful. You can take any RAW image that demonstrates a problem or style to emulate, load it in DCU5, and see what happens when you use the camera settings on it. With the right images to start with and an idea of the end goal, you can figure out whether the camera settings will work or not. It's like science.

Sounds interesting, but I'm probably not going to do that until Ricoh makes a version of DCU that runs in Linux (assumption: never). Trying and failing to get Topaz software to run in Wine or a Virtual Box was not fun.

[madison_wi_gal]

Sounds interesting, but I'm probably not going to do that until Ricoh makes a version of DCU that runs in Linux (assumption: never). Trying and failing to get Topaz software to run in Wine or a Virtual Box was not fun.

I am pleasantly surprised that it works fine in OS X Monterey. I heard too many things about its jankyness in Windows.