Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-19-2010, 02:33 PM   #31
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
While that's true in the broadest sense - they need to be demosaiced and converted to some sort of RGB format in order to be displayed or printer - it's not really true that one has to do any sort of custom processing. Most modern RAW processing applications apply defaults during their processing designed to more or or less emulate what the camera would have done in its own JPEG conversions. Some will even look at your camera settings to see if you've changed the camera's sharpening or saturation or contrast controls from the default values, and if so, attempt to replicate that. Meaning that with most modern RAW processing programs, a default conversion from RAW should look as good as the camera JPEG.

But it's true that a P&S JPEG will typically have noticeably higher sharpening, contrast, and saturation settings by default than a DSLR.
When I load photos into lightroom, it keeps the shooting WB, but the rest of the default settings (unless you program them otherwise) give pretty bland default conversions. If the original exposure is punchy enough in and of itself it's not so evident, but most shots look flat. That's why we have such extensive adjustment options, eh?


On iMac screens: I checked out my images on a friend's iMac and they looked awful; severely oversaturated, too much contrast, and too dark. Turns out my monitor was pretty close to just right (as close as a cheap LCD can be, anyways), but iMacs at default boost saturation and contrast pretty significantly.

08-19-2010, 03:44 PM   #32
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,684
Your shooting in RAW, which allows you to tweak the settings in PP to pretty much what ever you want.
08-19-2010, 05:48 PM   #33
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
Excellent question. The answer depends on the user. In the hands of someone who can fully utilize a DSLR the K10D is better, but for those who like to point and shoot the Nikon P&S would be better. This is a pretty cruical point, as many assume the DSLR is always better for them over a P&S, and that's not always true.
08-19-2010, 05:59 PM   #34
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob photo 4 life Quote
Call it emotional attachment, I used to shoot a lot of Ektachrome transparency film because I could get it free, but I really like the look and feel of this one.
Thanks. I like it too but they are (at 4x5) such a pain to do anymore.



08-19-2010, 09:39 PM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,535
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
<SNIP>
The K10d, in my experience, Always underexposes some.
Most Pentax products metering tends to be about 1/2 stop under, which is just about perfect for slide film where blown highlights had to be avoided at all costs. My KX metered that way, my SF-1, ME and MZ-S metered a smidgeon underexposed. Just like our DSLR models as it turns out.
QuoteQuote:
Personally, I like it that way because it always helped me avoid blowing the highlights. I always left mine at Natural for in camera JPG processing because, if the colors aren't bright, plastic, and over saturated, then I didn't want them captured that way. I think I'm alone in that respect though.
Not entirely. I'm in your camp. <SNIP>
08-19-2010, 09:54 PM   #36
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
Good to know I have an ally out there somewhere.

08-20-2010, 06:59 AM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 113
I've just happened in to this discussion at the end. I too, have been "upstaged" by my wife and her "point-and-shoot" Pana FZ30. And that, after my 50 years clicking, and teaching her a few things for just a couple of years.

Part of the problem is my higher interest in machinery than the pics. Therefore I have spent too much time learning each new "toy" looking for the perfect one for me. You never get the best results possible with the current "fling".

"Beware the man that only has only one gun and knows how to use it well"!

That being said, my latest passion is the E-p1 with a bunch of om and other brand manual glass. So far I am liking it a lot aside from lack of vf.

By the way there is no such thing as the perfect one. As there are no perfect photographers. Hence, these forums, for which we are thankful.

Most of the fun, is finding that you have found a way to get better pics with a favorite Camera.

Try, Try, Try Again!

Steve
08-20-2010, 08:16 AM   #38
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,155
While most stuff has already been covered, I'll add that just because a particular camera isn't an SLR, that doesn't mean that it's incapable of good pictures. When I finally made the jump to a DSLR from film, much of my decision was based on the very high quality images I was getting from my Fuji point and shoot. I also have a Samsung 35mm P&S with a Schneider zoom that matched the IQ of anything I shot with an SLR. The reasons for owning an SLR are for the options of different lenses, much more control of exposure, depth of field, etc. For many people, a quality P&S is all they need.

08-20-2010, 08:53 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
When I load photos into lightroom, it keeps the shooting WB, but the rest of the default settings (unless you program them otherwise) give pretty bland default conversions.
I am pretty sure LR allows you to customize the defaults, in a couple of different ways at that. So if you aren't happy with LR's default conversions, you should be able to fix that. And in any event, that would be an issue with LR specifically, not anything inherent about shooting RAW.
08-20-2010, 11:07 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by jeff knight Quote
Ah dude, this is normal. Point and shoot output is processed-up all punchy, sharp, and ready-to-view. My wife outshoots me sometime with her little Canon, and she does it all effortlessly, while I change lens after lens, and suffer through the most complicated post-processing. Believe me it annoys the hell out of me.

Also, is it possible your wife might just be a better photographer than you!!? My wife has certainly outshot me many times. It's a humbling experience for us SLR owners, but it certainly happens. Give her some credit.
My 6 YEAR OLD SON outshoots me regularly with his little waterproof backlit Sony PnS! He looks at things I don't (not just due to perspective, but out of interest in things we adults might overlook). I have to also say that the Sony exmor sensor is very good.

He can't play with DOF tho! He also loves the telephoto he can't reach (per a previous thread, shooting seagulls on a recent trip was a POP compared to shooting raptors, he loves those).
08-20-2010, 01:26 PM   #41
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I am pretty sure LR allows you to customize the defaults, in a couple of different ways at that. So if you aren't happy with LR's default conversions, you should be able to fix that. And in any event, that would be an issue with LR specifically, not anything inherent about shooting RAW.
Point duly noted (in the post you quoted, no less), but I was in particular responding to your statement "Most modern RAW processing applications apply defaults during their processing designed to more or or less emulate what the camera would have done in its own JPEG conversions." Personally I have found that to not at all be the case. LR, Capture One, and ACR are the ones I'm referring too, which is a pretty decent chunk of the market.

"Meaning that with most modern RAW processing programs, a default conversion from RAW should look as good as the camera JPEG." <This is the meat of my disagreement. I don't want the default RAW conversion to look similar to the camera jpeg; I want to see the data represented as close as possible to the RAW file itself, so that I can decide where to take it from there. The RAW converters I've tried all give me that at default, nothing that I'd output as-is, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Personally, I prefer the rather bland default conversion; it's not like I'm going to leave it that way and just export to jpeg. It's an excellent starting point for the way I work.
08-20-2010, 02:25 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by yustr Quote
Just got back from a weekend visit to MD. Took some shots on Sat = bright and sunny, and Sun = gray overcast. Took some at the same time and same subject as Mrs. yustr did with her new Nikon S6000 P&S. And upon downloading back home her's look better. More vibrant both color and contrast. Sharper too. Her's done in various auto mode JBGs, mine in RAW. Exposures are fine there's just no punch to them.

I'm guessing its my lens (kit 18-55, Promaster (Tamron) 70-300 and Sigma 28-70.

Somebody help before I put the whole kit up for sale and get a E-PL1
Do you not understand that your raw images have no adjustments applied in the camera, while your wife's jpegs do? Her P&S has altered brightness, contrast, saturation, sharpness etc according to the particular program that it was set to use. This is why her images look so much better right out of the camera. On the other hand, your raw files contain much more information, and you should be able to equal or surpass the S6000 images, if you have the vision and the skill to do so. Raw is for those who have an interest in getting the absolute best from an image. If that describes you, then I suggest that you work on your image editing skills. If not, then set your camera on jpeg and live with the results.

Rob
08-20-2010, 05:54 PM   #43
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
Point duly noted (in the post you quoted, no less), but I was in particular responding to your statement "Most modern RAW processing applications apply defaults during their processing designed to more or or less emulate what the camera would have done in its own JPEG conversions." Personally I have found that to not at all be the case.
Ah, I get it. I guess I didn't mean to imply that most programs look at your specific camera settings in deciding how to do their processing - I just meant they try to do by default similar things to what your camera would have done by default. I also observed that *some* programs may try to honor *some* camera settings (eg ACDSee Pro looks at saturation, sharpening, and contrast), but that was more of an aside - my main point was about defaults

QuoteQuote:
"Meaning that with most modern RAW processing programs, a default conversion from RAW should look as good as the camera JPEG." <This is the meat of my disagreement. I don't want the default RAW conversion to look similar to the camera jpeg; I want to see the data represented as close as possible to the RAW file itself, so that I can decide where to take it from there. The RAW converters I've tried all give me that at default
Could be. But I know ACR (meaning both PS and LR; not sure about Elements) has camera profiles that give you the ability to make the defaults more like the camera.

QuoteQuote:
I'm not sure where you're coming from.
I'm coming from a perspective of having used ACDSee Pro, PPL, Raw Therapee, and RSE, as well as ACR with the camera profile selected - all of which I'd characterize as making an effort to produce usable results "right out of the box". It's certainly true that one can *choose* to set up their software in a different manner, but I don't want people to get the idea that this is the *only* way to get acceptable results.
08-20-2010, 07:02 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Western Missouri
Posts: 429
Side note: I gave my wife a new Nikon S4000 P&S cam (little sister to the OP's wife's S6000) this spring. It's an excellent little camera under most of the conditions she wants to use it. I'm not that fond of touch screens but I will admit to loving how you can simply touch and drag the AF target brackets to where you want them in the composition you've made.
08-21-2010, 01:04 PM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,502
I would hesitate to blame your lenses. You should take some comparison pictures, with the camera mounted on a good tripod if there is any possibility of camera motion. And you might try to confirm focus manually. It's possible to get a poor copy of any one lens, but it's unlikely that all your lenses are poor copies. The kit lens, including the original version, should be capable of very good results.

Paul
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, kit, nikon, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Metz 54 MZ 4i w/ Pentax &amp; Nikon foot Helmut_S Sold Items 1 03-16-2010 08:18 PM
For Sale - Sold: Strobist Speedlite Kit - Nikon SB28 &amp; Cybersync Set bigben91682 Sold Items 3 07-06-2009 06:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D-BG2 Battery Grip (for K10D &amp; K20D) &amp; Remote Control F Bundle frank Sold Items 4 12-11-2008 07:14 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 50-200, Nikon 3T &amp; 4T Closeup lenses, Tiffen Linear Polarizer infosyn Sold Items 3 05-13-2008 08:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top