[reh321]

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.

Your mistake is in thinking in terms of making last minute changes in settings.
Someone who is thinking of using JPEG will think in terms of settings which make him flexible and
in terms of changing technique to compensate for conditions.

For example, I know now that white buildings don’t photograph well,
so I underexpose them, knowing that a simple application
of “curves” can ‘adjust’ a JPEG and give me the desired rendition.

I don’t take sidelines photos, so I don’t know exactly what “tricks” they have available.

added: Remember, the sun processes across the sky in a uniform, predictable, way.
Games last only so long, and in the US, ‘sideline photogs’ can pick where they take their shots from.
I doubt any professionals choose a spot that will have them shooting into the sun, for example.
Golf is one sport I’m not familiar with the conditions of.

---

Last edited by reh321; 05-18-2022 at 11:55 AM.

[reh321]

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 use a Linux desktop these days, while my wife uses a Windows laptop.
I purchased a new HP printer Monday because our existing printer’s circuitry had problems with the color red.
I had it working on my computer as fast as she did - it turns out that HP itself provides Linux software to help the setup.
Linux is familiar to many who work in the software field, and many products {such as “gimp”} start off as Linux products.

[BruceBanner]

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.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I am following your thinking here or understood you correctly.

Nowhere on the SOOC guidebook does it say you shoot Natural or Bright only. Nowhere in the SOOC guidebook does it say 'possibly with tweaks'.

You have 5 Custom User Modes, you can store multiple different Jpg 'recipes'. I encourage HEAVY tweaking, deliberate choices of WB that is often not what the camera may automatically give (more interesting results can often stem from getting off AWB). I would not put Monochrome and Satobi in the same sentence with Film Reversal, as both the formers can be heavily tweaked but Film Reversal is the one Custom Image that seems adamant to be fairly fixed without much room to move.

Totally not having a go, I just wasn't sure what you were meaning here. I have at least 2-3 different Satobi looks/recipes now, it's pretty versatile and you can do the same with most of the other Custom Image profiles as well. I just wanted to cement that possibly more creative and artistically pleasing results can be had in Jpg and actually Bright and Natural would be my least used for experimenting and seeing what I come up with. If I want Natural or Bright I tend to just shoot RAW.

Here's two examples of Satobi taking on different vibes to illustrate my point (settings at the end of blog);

https://www.eddysummers.com.au/blog/my-hc-warm-soft-satobi-profile

https://www.eddysummers.com.au/blog/becs-garden-with-the-pentax-f70-2104-56

(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.

I definitely recommend shooting RAW+Jpg, so if the Jpg didn't turn out as you like you still have a RAW to work off from. With my event/wedding work I will often shoot monochrome throughout the day and use the RAWs to derive colour versions from etc. Shooting only Jpg would lock you in, I'm not that ballsy yet

You can bind somethings to the Info Shortcut section, I encourage things like Shadow Recovery and Highlight Correction, that's a super nice way to quickly adjust that on the fly. Fuji cameras have the HS Tone Curve in their equivalent of the Info shortcut menu which is another nice touch and results in less menu diving should you need to quickly adjust contrast.

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.

Some genres just demand RAW files a lot more. I don't think any serious bird or wildlife tog will be doing SOOC or PSOOC. High dynamic range is the SOOC/PSOOC enemy, you're starting behind the 8 ball so to speak for conditions and genres like this. Like I said, no right and wrong here with RAW vs SOOC. It's a case by case thing. The thing to probably be more aware of is;

- Did I need that shot RAW?
- Did I need all that room to move in post production or was it overkill?
- Did I need an image that holds incredible IQ at 100% inspection, or is this a social media 2048 longest edge type thing?
- Could I have saved myself time (and thus money for us working togs) by having some pleasing recipes stored in camera that would have suited the scene I faced and resulted in less work and time with a quicker turnaround

Yes, you'll want to explore the features thoroughly, Highlight Correction on and Shadow Recovery can move the file towards a place where an editor like LR has Highlights pulled back and Shadows raised (a common first step in post processing). Combine this with HS curve adjustments of the Custom Image can actually impact the image a lot more than people realise.
Just be aware that Highlight Correction is baked into the RAW, Shadow Recovery is not.

[madison_wi_gal]

Hey guys, I didn't want to start a contentious topic here, so sorry about that.

That said, I am learning a lot and now that I have my UHS-II card I'll pop that into slot 1 and pop the standard 1 in slot 2 and shoot RAW + jpg at the same time. I have a working and up to date copy of PDCU, and I now know how to use exiftool command line to add the lens data to the right spot so Flickr sees it.

Now I just need to figure out how to take a picture of a fish tank for the contest. .

[gatorguy]

Hey guys, I didn't want to start a contentious topic here, so sorry about that.

That said, I am learning a lot and now that I have my UHS-II card I'll pop that into slot 1 and pop the standard 1 in slot 2 and shoot RAW + jpg at the same time. I have a working and up to date copy of PDCU, and I now know how to use exiftool command line to add the lens data to the right spot so Flickr sees it.

Now I just need to figure out how to take a picture of a fish tank for the contest. .

Go girl!

Ignore most of this discussion, it's mostly opinions sometimes presented as fact. There's more than one way to boil eggs.

You'll find your own way of getting from A to B, make some mistakes along the way, have several AHA! moments and learn a lot if you want to, and before you know it be the one giving some other new member here advice.

[Rondec]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I am following your thinking here or understood you correctly.

Nowhere on the SOOC guidebook does it say you shoot Natural or Bright only. Nowhere in the SOOC guidebook does it say 'possibly with tweaks'.

You have 5 Custom User Modes, you can store multiple different Jpg 'recipes'. I encourage HEAVY tweaking, deliberate choices of WB that is often not what the camera may automatically give (more interesting results can often stem from getting off AWB). I would not put Monochrome and Satobi in the same sentence with Film Reversal, as both the formers can be heavily tweaked but Film Reversal is the one Custom Image that seems adamant to be fairly fixed without much room to move.

Totally not having a go, I just wasn't sure what you were meaning here. I have at least 2-3 different Satobi looks/recipes now, it's pretty versatile and you can do the same with most of the other Custom Image profiles as well. I just wanted to cement that possibly more creative and artistically pleasing results can be had in Jpg and actually Bright and Natural would be my least used for experimenting and seeing what I come up with. If I want Natural or Bright I tend to just shoot RAW.

Here's two examples of Satobi taking on different vibes to illustrate my point (settings at the end of blog);

https://www.eddysummers.com.au/blog/my-hc-warm-soft-satobi-profile

https://www.eddysummers.com.au/blog/becs-garden-with-the-pentax-f70-2104-56



I definitely recommend shooting RAW+Jpg, so if the Jpg didn't turn out as you like you still have a RAW to work off from. With my event/wedding work I will often shoot monochrome throughout the day and use the RAWs to derive colour versions from etc. Shooting only Jpg would lock you in, I'm not that ballsy yet

You can bind somethings to the Info Shortcut section, I encourage things like Shadow Recovery and Highlight Correction, that's a super nice way to quickly adjust that on the fly. Fuji cameras have the HS Tone Curve in their equivalent of the Info shortcut menu which is another nice touch and results in less menu diving should you need to quickly adjust contrast.






Some genres just demand RAW files a lot more. I don't think any serious bird or wildlife tog will be doing SOOC or PSOOC. High dynamic range is the SOOC/PSOOC enemy, you're starting behind the 8 ball so to speak for conditions and genres like this. Like I said, no right and wrong here with RAW vs SOOC. It's a case by case thing. The thing to probably be more aware of is;

- Did I need that shot RAW?
- Did I need all that room to move in post production or was it overkill?
- Did I need an image that holds incredible IQ at 100% inspection, or is this a social media 2048 longest edge type thing?
- Could I have saved myself time (and thus money for us working togs) by having some pleasing recipes stored in camera that would have suited the scene I faced and resulted in less work and time with a quicker turnaround

Yes, you'll want to explore the features thoroughly, Highlight Correction on and Shadow Recovery can move the file towards a place where an editor like LR has Highlights pulled back and Shadows raised (a common first step in post processing). Combine this with HS curve adjustments of the Custom Image can actually impact the image a lot more than people realise.
Just be aware that Highlight Correction is baked into the RAW, Shadow Recovery is not.

Straight out of camera jpegs have a lot of flexibility. I will try to sum up my points succinctly. (1) "Most" people who shoot jpegs out of camera do not do a lot of tweaking between images. They find something that gives them adequate results and they stick with that. (2) It doesn't really matter if you take time setting up Presets in Lightroom or doing it in camera. The time spent is similar once you have made your presets/recipes.

I have said multiple times that there is no right or wrong way, I just think the time saving is over stated. What takes me time is figuring out which images to delete, not post processing the ones I do keep.

[BruceBanner]

Straight out of camera jpegs have a lot of flexibility. I will try to sum up my points succinctly. (1) "Most" people who shoot jpegs out of camera do not do a lot of tweaking between images. They find something that gives them adequate results and they stick with that. (2) It doesn't really matter if you take time setting up Presets in Lightroom or doing it in camera. The time spent is similar once you have made your presets/recipes.

I have said multiple times that there is no right or wrong way, I just think the time saving is over stated. What takes me time is figuring out which images to delete, not post processing the ones I do keep.

As an event photographer I would have to say point 2 is not true. This is why many professionals are choosing to shoot Jpgs for client work where mass of images is a thing. The key part you're missing is that once you have set up the profiles in camera correctly (a one time affair that can reproduced for event after event and give that style consistency you're looking for), then the image is either 100% or 90% the way there for what the tog and client wants. It's a huge difference (if there even is the need for post processing) to fudge a couple of Presence sliders vs starting from scratch with a flat lifeless RAW, choose a render, adjust tone and so forth. But there's more, the fact you're getting that WYSIWYG experience during the shoot, you are in a better exposure place artisiticaly speaking. You're actually doing the tone adjustments via exposures at the time of the shoot vs deciding whether that look would be good or not in post, it can take a lot of the 'what if's' out of the shoot.
This becomes the stuff that can be the difference in getting 300 images to a client within a couple of hours vs days spent sorting RAWs and getting them to becoming a cohesive set. If you don't believe me just ask yourself why then would so many industry leaders (brand ambassadors even) shoot and do this? No business person wants inefficiency and time wasting for negligible results.

As for point no.1 I dunno about that. When I was only a Pentax shooter I shot predominantly RAW. It was when I grabbed a Fuji my eyes were open to the Jpg thing and that camp do actually do a lot of on the fly Jpg adjustments. It's all time dependent, if you don't have the time to make that shadow or contrast change at the time from the roll of a dial, then you don't, but if you do have time you do. I think with DSLR's this is a slightly different thing because there is either reliance on LV to get this experience and/or chimping.

[gatorguy]

As an event photographer I would have to say point 2 is not true.

As another event photographer I would say "it depends". No one is wrong.

My personal experience has been the people paying me for photographing music events have a higher expectation. Those images are often used for both print and on-line promotion, as hi-res photos available for purchase as prints or lower res download for sharing, and as part of personal portfolios. In my own experience those clients would not be happy with getting images taken with a couple of film emulations, even tweaked in post, and call it a day.

But for doing trade for promotion or minimal charge charity events, which I do several times a year, your suggestion of using your camera to save images using in-camera jpeg profiles is probably smart. No need for 300 raw photos since they would never be appreciated any more than the OOC ones. Go JPEG if using only your mirrorless or DSLR, it's OK. The photos only get shared socially and most could probably get the same treatment, at worst a couple of profiles.

But that ignores another option that may even be better if speedy turnaround time is high importance: My smartphone.

More and more my eyes are being opened to how much more convenient and TBH effective my Pixel smartphone can be for general use at those types of events. The processing is smarter, faster, far more forgiving with poor or uneven light, with more profiles available than any camera, and relative ease in addressing various (perceived) body flaws on-the-spot in a way that the subject expects. I'll be offered several images just before and after the shutter is pressed to choose from in addition to a Pixel-suggested "better" in case the subject blinked or blurred or whatever, and can crop and otherwise modify in the moment. Big plus; They're also immediately uploaded in original resolution to my cloud photo catalog. I think if I were to personally move to an all JPEG workflow for non-critical photos it would be using my Pixel 6 Pro, or whatever smartphone comes after.

So in a nutshell what I've been doing for several months now at charity events is carry my camera and speedlight for select shots intended for more thorough and considered processing just as I always had (and that clients love), but using my smartphone more for those on-the-go quick post-up to Facebook or share with a client shots that won't ever get the hi-res print treatment anyway. I'm receiving better feedback by doing so.

So yes profiled JPEGS can be the better choice "depending", and Fuji has a nice selection, making you 100% correct in promoting them Eddy. (I'm still waffling on their medium format for portraiture). A lot of situations would not benefit from raw. But for me the JPEG part is leaning towards capturing via smartphone, with my more expensive camera gear still doing raw. That's where its strengths are IMO, possibilities for better than good in post, and limits the number of shots that need any processing at all. I've been shocked at how few really deserve more love. That said it is certainly possible even my camera may get more JPEG love "depending". I have fewer than a dozen go-to presets for raw images that serve most any general photo processing need. They batch good. You've given me food for thought whether doing so in camera would be faster, so I'd have just have to give it a try. No firm decision yet.

But every recent event (another coming up the first weekend of June) has me leaning harder towards using the camera/raw and smartphone/jpeg plan. Its getting a good reception and the workflow is certainly faster and easier with less time needed post-event. For you that might not be a consideration, a smartphone being an unacceptable addition to your camera for any hired event photos. That wouldn't make either of us wrong, just different ways of satisfying ourselves or our clients as the case may be.

We all have our ways of capturing what we see, and rendering those images in the way we imagine it should be. Some of us love creation and imagination, while others want to capture as it was when we were there. No one is right, nor is anyone wrong.

FWIW, I thoroughly enjoy the creativity, and post-processing is a big part of that. It's not a chore to be avoided but instead a joy to do with so many possibilities I never have considered until they arrive on my computer and playtime begins. I love the journey as much as the destination.

Anyway, we're getting far beyond what the OP asked and getting mired in personal opinions of this community vs. that community, along with gear the OP does not own, all presumed to be fact applied to all. We're even opining on photo opportunities the OP is not likely to be doing at this stage of her photo journey.
She wants to know best practices for the camera she recently purchased and that's really what we should be replying to if we want to be a helpful community

[reh321]

As an amateur, I photograph my world as it is today, before it changes tomorrow. Punct.

I have several railroading pictures I took in 1973 or even earlier.

1. I have a photo taken in August 1968 of a place that has always been my favorite train station. “Stone Ave”, in suburban Chicago has probably changed very little despite changes in ownership and management, but I photographed it with a Kodak Instamatic 100 back then, and a new photo would show how much technology is has changed.

2. I have a photo taken in November 1973 in Niles Michigan just north of here. At the time it was a rundown station along the Penn Central, a reminder of what the Michigan Central had been. Since then, Amtrak has purchased the Chicago - Detroit line, the city has sand-blasted and generally cleaned up the station area, and local citizens have planted flowers. A new photo would show this tribute to the old in a completely different way.

3. I have a photo of the “Edaville” Railroad taken in August 1973. The railroad, founded and named by Edward D. Attwood, took tourists through cranberry bogs near Plymouth MA on rails originally laid to service the crops. Mr. Atwood was apparently not a ‘good businessman’, so others took control, sold off half the land for housing, and turned Edaville into a small theme park with the railroad as one of the offerings. I don’t intend to go back there, but a new photo would show how much the place has changed.

Three photos. In all cases, ‘prettifying’ {my wife’s term} would at best be confusing. The honest truth would be …. the honest truth, which is always my goal.

Money does not motivate me.

[Mikesul]

Have any of you taken a look at the videos of Takumichi Seo? He is a favorite of Ricoh/Pentax and seems to be a successful Japanese pro. His videos are in Japanese but are enjoyable and instructive to watch. I mention him here because he seems to work in JPG making multiple settings as he works. Here is a link to something on the Ricoh site: Takumichi Seo with PENTAX: The Memory of Light / explore | RICOH IMAGING.

[madison_wi_gal]

She wants to know best practices for the camera she recently purchased and that's really what we should be replying to if we want to be a helpful community

It's OK, I am learning from all of this.

[gatorguy]

Have any of you taken a look at the videos of Takumichi Seo? He is a favorite of Ricoh/Pentax and seems to be a successful Japanese pro. His videos are in Japanese but are enjoyable and instructive to watch. I mention him here because he seems to work in JPG making multiple settings as he works. Here is a link to something on the Ricoh site: Takumichi Seo with PENTAX: The Memory of Light / explore | RICOH IMAGING.

Now THAT is a very useful and educational link. Thanks for sharing it with the community. I would not have assumed such rich and unique images could be crafted simply using the jpeg settings of our Pentax cameras. Such beautiful imagery and color!

EDIT: That was a far more convincing series regarding the adaptability of our Pentax cameras for unique artistic vision OOC than I've seen anyone yet link. Thank you so very much. I'm enthused about taking more time out in the field and landscapes using some of the proven techniques and settings with my K1 while already out on wildlife shoots with my K3III. I always have the K1 tagging along but up until now crafting from raw. Takumichi Seo has pushed me to reconsider the usefulness of custom jpeg profiles for casual shoots. This is exactly why a two-camera system is such an advantage for me, different tools for different intents.

[Rondec]

As an event photographer I would have to say point 2 is not true. This is why many professionals are choosing to shoot Jpgs for client work where mass of images is a thing. The key part you're missing is that once you have set up the profiles in camera correctly (a one time affair that can reproduced for event after event and give that style consistency you're looking for), then the image is either 100% or 90% the way there for what the tog and client wants. It's a huge difference (if there even is the need for post processing) to fudge a couple of Presence sliders vs starting from scratch with a flat lifeless RAW, choose a render, adjust tone and so forth. But there's more, the fact you're getting that WYSIWYG experience during the shoot, you are in a better exposure place artisiticaly speaking. You're actually doing the tone adjustments via exposures at the time of the shoot vs deciding whether that look would be good or not in post, it can take a lot of the 'what if's' out of the shoot.
This becomes the stuff that can be the difference in getting 300 images to a client within a couple of hours vs days spent sorting RAWs and getting them to becoming a cohesive set. If you don't believe me just ask yourself why then would so many industry leaders (brand ambassadors even) shoot and do this? No business person wants inefficiency and time wasting for negligible results.

As for point no.1 I dunno about that. When I was only a Pentax shooter I shot predominantly RAW. It was when I grabbed a Fuji my eyes were open to the Jpg thing and that camp do actually do a lot of on the fly Jpg adjustments. It's all time dependent, if you don't have the time to make that shadow or contrast change at the time from the roll of a dial, then you don't, but if you do have time you do. I think with DSLR's this is a slightly different thing because there is either reliance on LV to get this experience and/or chimping.

My wife shoots weddings and she has told me multiple times that what takes time is not processing images, but rather figuring out which images to keep, cloning out little things, and doing face swaps for families with lots of little children. Once she takes care of those sorts of things, the actual processing doesn't take much time at all.

She is really careful about things like white balance and will say things like, "I think the couple's skin is too pink here..." when I can't see anything wrong with the image. Once she is satisfied with one image, it is a very simple matter to get it synced to multiple other images though.

It sounds like you are at a different place and there's nothing wrong with that. I guess the important thing is that you are comfortable with what you do, not that one size fits all.

[ThorSanchez]

...

But that ignores another option that may even be better if speedy turnaround time is high importance: My smartphone.

...

That is a good point. I almost never use jpegs with the K-3 Mark III, but of course always do with my Pixel 6. And there are a lot of situations where I've been reasonably impressed by the results from the Pixel. Certainly my year-end family photo book will include any number of shots with the phone and no one will ever notice they weren't taken with the good camera.

For all the goodness of the K-3 Mark III, speedy turnaround time isn't one of them. The phone auto-uploads everything to my Google Photos site immediately. The Pentax is a process that almost requires a written workflow to figure out.

[luftfluss]

Pentax offers a wealth of JPEG tweaks in-camera, so for many users in most cases that should suffice.

Using a "flagship" camera is more than just about squeezing every last drop of "image quality" out of its sensor.