[AfterPentax Mark II]

In my previous thread, I was trying to get an "Explain Like I'm Five" recipe for what SOOC JPG settings would work for my K-3 III, and in the 5 ( so far) pages of dialogue, I learned a lot, but the best thing I learned (I think) is that a RAW image (at least a fairly decently exposed one) can be manipulated in PDCU and the result is ~ the same as if you processed in the camera.

I think.

Since unlike a lot of the responders, I'm not shooting professionally, so I do have the time to shoot in RAW (or RAW+ JPG) and then PDCU the RAW results, and I plan to do that with both cards in.

I still need to learn the K-3 III controls and the features, since even a flagship can't save me if I don't take a little interest in my surroundings and use appropriate settings, but it is fortunate that I can use 2 cards to shoot RAW & JPG, try out some of the JPG settings examples here and here but have a RAW backup in case, so I am glad I asked the initial question.

This is so cool.

I have just one setting, that is Natural. I feel that is closest to what they wanted in the film era. Accordingly I treat my KP as if it is a modern version of my Super A, or my beloved SFX's. So I have set my camera to RAW+, making the negative and the print in one go! Having the RAW file saved me two or three times losing a lovely picture due to wrong exposure, too dark. I am usually very content what comes SOOC from my KP. After all, the fun is in (m)(t)aking the picture.

[35mmfilmfan]

In my opinion, that's not as big a yolk as one might think. The "third eye" represents awareness, and I find that's a big part of how I take pictures.

For those who are interested :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobsang_Rampa

[reh321]

The "third eye" represents awareness, and I find that's a big part of how I take pictures.

Most of us do that in some form or another - we just tend not to talk about it.

[Just1MoreDave]

I have over a week of K-3 III experience so I'm now qualified for advice on jpeg settings.

I like the idea of shadow and highlight correction, because it will help if I get the exposure wrong. Neither setting will do anything if I get it right.

I tested the sharpening settings in DCU5 using RAW images of various detailed subjects. I settled quickly on conservative numbers here. Sharpening can be done later and I like a light touch.

White balance is why I really like RAW because it's so easy to change later. I am doing a lot of testing of the white balance settings and AWB. For example, I do woodworking and photos of it in my garage, which has lots of fixtures with a similar color temperature. I want to know if the camera can be set to AWB here or if I have to set a color temperature. This is all part of a user profile because conditions are fairly uniform out there. Cooking photos in a kitchen would be similar; make sure the white balance matches the light. Other places in the house have seasonal light based on direction of the window or paint color. In general the testing will show how much to monitor white balance in the rest of the world.

The color stuff I'm leaving until last or probably deciding it's fine as is. Note that other people don't seem to try stuff at random, instead they have an idea of a look or color they want to match. If I liked the look of a CCD sensor or other previous camera, it would be easy to take a photo with that camera, swap the lens to the new camera, take the same photo and fiddle with settings to get a match.

I have checked the camera's level to see if it's really level. Do that before turning on horizon correction. Lens corrections depend on the lenses you're using. I am in the habit of leaving them off so they don't slow down the camera. That doesn't seem to be as necessary with the K-3 III, but now I expect my lens's flaws and work around them. When I use old lenses the camera doesn't help anyway.

Anyway, I will keep discovering K-3 III settings and mysteries.

[madison_wi_gal]

I turn every thing I can that's designed to enhance JPEG pictures off, except in-camera image stabilization and multi-auto white balance (those do affect what happens to the raw data). I figure the camera's going to be a nanosecond faster without that stuff, and I can fiddle with the parameters at my leisure when I edit the raw data. In the field, I treat the DSLR like a film camera, almost - I only adjust ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, as a rule. I do use the TAv drive mode and use exposure compensation a bit, but those aren't things that ordinarily require adjustment on the fly.

This EXACTLY was what I was getting at in the previous thread (closed now) and hinted at in this one, once I became convinced that dealing with RAW is not as difficult as I thought

In this case, learning basic settings for RAW that will result in a good baseline for horsing around later in PDCU to get my JPG.

So, my follow up question here is: Is it either/or? If I select SATOBI and shoot both RAW and jpg, what happens? Starting to get confused.

[gatorguy]

This EXACTLY was what I was getting at in the previous thread (closed now) and hinted at in this one, once I became convinced that dealing with RAW is not as difficult as I thought

In this case, learning basic settings for RAW that will result in a good baseline for horsing around later in PDCU to get my JPG.

So, my follow up question here is: Is it either/or? If I select SATOBI and shoot both RAW and jpg, what happens? Starting to get confused.

You will have a JPEG with Satobi processing and raw that isn't. That's why shooting RAW+ may be advantageous. You'll have that original image to work with if the Sobobi-processed one isn't to your liking.

[stihlmania]

This EXACTLY was what I was getting at in the previous thread (closed now) and hinted at in this one, once I became convinced that dealing with RAW is not as difficult as I thought

In this case, learning basic settings for RAW that will result in a good baseline for horsing around later in PDCU to get my JPG.

So, my follow up question here is: Is it either/or? If I select SATOBI and shoot both RAW and jpg, what happens? Starting to get confused.

I shoot raw+jpeg 100 percent on my K3-111. My jpgs are factory default settings and 95% of the time nice images are the result. I use jpgs for my IPad and IPhone, (saves tons of space),raw for my big computer…I have no reason to even try to set the in camera jpg settings different, as there are so many variables that effect the images. I use Photos on the IOS devices and with one adjustment button , if I think it needs some help, I can get excellent images for web or small prints. Just something for thought.. My raw images on my IMac are better that the jpgs on IOS, You need to play around with jpg setting to see what results you get and learn if it’s worth the trouble. It’s not worth the trouble to me. As always ,others have different opinions but I have found that the lens is the most important thing for image quality, raw or jpg.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[madison_wi_gal]

You will have a JPEG with Satobi processing and raw that isn't. That's why shooting RAW+ may be advantageous. You'll have that original image to work with if the Sobobi-processed one isn't to your liking.

OOOOOOOO!!

More cool! OK, so RAW+. = RAW to card 1 JPG to card 2, in-camera image stabilization and multi-auto white balance on, TAv with ISO pegged at [???]. Set SOOC settings to whatever I feel like and see what happens?

****************

Well, OK. I shot my african violet in RAW+. Set the jpg color space to satobi. DNG on card 1 JPG on card 2.

Pulled both into PDCU and the RAW also says satobi. The pics look identical (and nice)

What am i missing?

[reh321]

My sentience exactly. What bothers me about JPEG in-camera settings is that it's too much trouble to try to fiddle with all those settings and to deal with the complexity of their interrelationships in the field. When I'm ready to take a shot, I don't want to have to say, "Wait a second, I've got to fiddle with my camera settings." I turn every thing I can that's designed to enhance JPEG pictures off, except in-camera image stabilization and multi-auto white balance (those do affect what happens to the raw data). I figure the camera's going to be a nanosecond faster without that stuff, and I can fiddle with the parameters at my leisure when I edit the raw data. In the field, I treat the DSLR like a film camera, almost - I only adjust ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, as a rule. I do use the TAv drive mode and use exposure compensation a bit, but those aren't things that ordinarily require adjustment on the fly. When I'm taking a picture, I want to be thinking about my subject and my composition, not trying to remember how I last set "clarity".

A photographer should be adjusting only shutter speed, aperture, and ISO in the field.
S/he should be using the camera exactly as a film photographer would.
S/he does not ‘fiddle with’, or think about, the other settings in the field.
That is the whole point.
All this talk about adjusting “JPEG” parameters in the field is just talk by those who don’t understand JPEG.

[gatorguy]

A photographer should be adjusting only shutter speed, aperture, and ISO in the field.
S/he should be using the camera exactly as a film photographer would.
S/he does not ‘fiddle with’, or think about, the other settings in the field.
That is the whole point.
All this talk about adjusting “JPEG” parameters in the field is just talk by those who don’t understand JPEG.

You describe a documentary approach. We're not all simply documenting a scene. We often create one, in the field, in-studio, or on computer. We're part of the artist community, painting with light, and Ii's OK. We create, yet we're still photographers.

So let's stay on topic.

[Just1MoreDave]

...

Well, OK. I shot my african violet in RAW+. Set the jpg color space to satobi. DNG on card 1 JPG on card 2.

Pulled both into PDCU and the RAW also says satobi. The pics look identical (and nice)

What am i missing?

Sneaky stuff that happens behind your back! Because RAW is sort of just data, the camera also creates a handy image preview to go along with it. The image preview is often used by software to show you the file. I think PDCU just uses the jpeg settings as a convenient starting point, because it can read them and it has to start somewhere. Adobe software often starts with its own image profile. You can see some threads complaining about this - Lightroom will load the preview for a RAW file, then it will switch to its own profile which often looks drab by comparison. Software has to use something as a starting point for RAW files, but you should be able to change SATOBI to natural without losing anything.

[madison_wi_gal]

Sneaky stuff that happens behind your back! Because RAW is sort of just data, the camera also creates a handy image preview to go along with it. The image preview is often used by software to show you the file. I think PDCU just uses the jpeg settings as a convenient starting point, because it can read them and it has to start somewhere. Adobe software often starts with its own image profile. You can see some threads complaining about this - Lightroom will load the preview for a RAW file, then it will switch to its own profile which often looks drab by comparison. Software has to use something as a starting point for RAW files, but you should be able to change SATOBI to natural without losing anything.

AAAAAAAAAA! OK, makes sense.

I have access to Lightroom via work, but eventually won't so decided to try PDCU. So "natural" is essentially "pure" (so to speak)?

[reh321]

You describe a documentary approach. We're not all simply documenting a scene. We often create one, in the field, in-studio, or on computer. We're part of the artist community, painting with light, and Ii's OK. We create, yet we're still photographers.

So let's stay on topic.

I am on the subject of this thread!!

I state that a JPEG photographer should use exactly the controls that it was just stated that a “raw” photographer should touch.
The “raw” photographers are claiming that JPEG photographers are doing all kinds of adjusting in the field,
and THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
Perhaps “raw” photographers are more ‘artistic’ at heart; that is more believable, but
viewing JPEG photographers as people who adjust JPEG parameters in the field
as “raw” photographers do later - but at an earlier stage - misrepresents some of us.

Yes, I take a documentary approach to photography, but I am still a photographer;
not all of us are painting a scene as we wished it looked - some of us paint it as it actually does look.

I am glad you posted your comment because it highlights what I’ve been saying all along.

[mikesbike]

A photographer should be adjusting only shutter speed, aperture, and ISO in the field.
S/he should be using the camera exactly as a film photographer would.
S/he does not ‘fiddle with’, or think about, the other settings in the field.
That is the whole point.
All this talk about adjusting “JPEG” parameters in the field is just talk by those who don’t understand JPEG.

I agree. Adjustments made in various Custom Image category menus are done ahead of any shooting outings, and once settled upon do not often need further attention. That said, sometimes conditions might suggest a switch to a different category. This is actually an advantage over film. Let's say we were shooting some scenics with a 35mm film body and Fuji ASA 50 Velvia slide film. Noted for being very colorful, very well-saturated colors. However, not the best for skin tone, often making people look too flushed. Instead of having to switch film in mid roll when some people arrive to be included, with a Pentax DSLR, if the usual "Bright" category makes skin tones too flushed, we can simply switch to "Natural" in a flash. And I have found there are native differences in color reproduction, as well as other parameters, between different models. Therefore, whether or not this switch might be beneficial could also depend on which model is being used. These considerations also relate to another posting-

[reh321]

You describe a documentary approach. We're not all simply documenting a scene. We often create one, in the field, in-studio, or on computer. We're part of the artist community, painting with light, and Ii's OK. We create, yet we're still photographers.

So let's stay on topic.

I agree. Adjustments made in various Custom Image category menus are done ahead of any shooting outings, and once settled upon do not often need further attention. That said, sometimes conditions might suggest a switch to a different category. This is actually an advantage over film. Let's say we were shooting some scenics with a 35mm film body and Fuji ASA 50 Velvia slide film. Noted for being very colorful, very well-saturated colors. However, not the best for skin tone, often making people look too flushed. Instead of having to switch film in mid roll when some people arrive to be included, with a Pentax DSLR, if the usual "Bright" category makes skin tones too flushed, we can simply switch to "Natural" in a flash. And I have found there are native differences in color reproduction, as well as other parameters, between different models. Therefore, whether or not this switch might be beneficial could also depend on which model is being used. These considerations also relate to another posting-

Is this where having several “user modes” set up in advance comes in??