Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2007, 10:27 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
I guess part of the issue here is the difference between someone who learned with film and someone who never shot film.

With film, a lot of time was spent selecting the right film, filters, lighting, etc to get the shot because you had to.

Now, too many people go out and shoot, thing oh well, I can always fix it in photoshop.

Having investing the time to learn not only film, but how my DSLRs work, my preference is to shoot JPEG and modify the settings as I need them. That works well enough to print 11 x 17.

I see no need to shoot raw, although I have experimented enough to know that when you look at details that are 3-5 pixles in width, yes they are better with RAW, but I simply don't print anything near that big.

11-27-2007, 11:24 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
caveat - I do not own the K10D (only the K100D) so take this FWIW -

I posted this in another thread and thought some may be relevant here -

dpReview 16. Photographic Tests of the K10D
under Overall Image Quality / Specifics - about 1/2 way down the page -
" Image sharpness / demosaicing (JPEG vs. RAW)
We were a little disappointed that the K10D's built-in image processor didn't deliver the crisp sharp edges which can be produced by shooting RAW and converting using a third party engine (such as Adobe Camera RAW). It's speculation but it does appear to me to be a combination of the type of demosaicing algorithm used (not isolating edge detail well enough) and the type of sharpening algorithm (as discussed earlier this appears to work to enhance the 'undershoot', the black side, of an edge). As we saw in the Image Parameters section of this review increasing sharpening only appears to increase the visibility of texture type detail rather than edge sharpness. "

I found this was the case even with post-processing - I downloaded the JPG and RAW samples shown on that page - then attempted to match the sharpness of the RAW sample by doing Sharpen and Unsharp Masking on the JPG sample - although I managed to get the JPG to be a bit crisper - I was NOT able to match the RAW sharpness.

from dpReview of the Canon 40D page 26 -

" There isn't a single camera on the market which gains so much by shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera RAW to convert its images than the K10D. The difference is night and day and indeed the K10D in this comparison trumps the EOS 40D for detail which hints perhaps that Pentax are using a sensor with a lighter anti-alias filter (although if you look at some of the crops you can see some demosaicing artifacts). "

Although RAW definitely has advantages -
it is NOT the simple panecea for all ills -
as this from the dpReview Conclusions of the K10D shows -

" When we reviewed the K100D we thought Pentax had got their image processing just right, however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.

Pentax may well have been aiming for a smooth film-like appearance but I at least feel that the inability to tweak this out by increasing sharpness is a mistake. That said it's unlikely you'll see this difference in any print up to A3 size, it's a 100% view thing so you have to decide if that's important to you or not. To get that absolute crisp appearance you'll need to shoot RAW, and use Adobe Camera RAW or another third party converter (as the supplied converter produces similar results to the camera). "
(my highlighing in blue )

This means if one uses the default RAW converter supplied by Pentax one gets basically similar results to the in-camera JPG - so to get get more optimal results one has to use either Adobe Camera RAW (or another third party converter) - extra expense and learn how to use it properly to get "better" results......

Lastly I'd also like to acknowledge Maxamillion's great shots of the hotrods - excellent pictures.
Not meaning to take anything away from those wonderful shots - they do not contain the fine (finicky) detail down to the pixel level that dpReview was complaining about -

Like dpReview said from above:
" That said it's unlikely you'll see this difference in any print up to A3 size, it's a 100% view thing so you have to decide if that's important to you or not. "
11-27-2007, 05:25 PM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,134
QuoteOriginally posted by JamesD Quote
Hello, Wendy

In his article "JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time" found here:

RAW vs JPG

Ken Rockwell goes into detail as to why many prefer to shoot in JPEG. I'm not saying I entirely agree, but he makes several good points.

As for the perfect moment just happening, I doubt Ansel Adams would agree. Sometimes of course (as in Eugene Smith's Walk into Paradise Garden) the perfect moment does happen. But generally they are well planned for and executed by experienced photographers.
And many other photographers suggest that RAW is to way to go. I agree with them. If I want JPEG output, I can do it from the RAW. Why throw away the detail and suffer through a white balance oops when RAW allows you to redo all those settings.

Check out the settings in the camera that only affect the JPEGs as converted. White Balance, Saturation, Contrast, the list is almost all of the digital only settings (compared to a film camera of similar capability). You need focus, exposure accuracty. The rest can be done later.
11-27-2007, 05:55 PM   #34
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 89
I shoot both jpeg and RAW depending on the shoot.

Very recently started shooting RAW when I need to.

Been a lover of photography and taken thousands of images for over 50 years. I have owned just about every brand in 35mm, plus Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Fuji and Pentax Digital.

Currently own two DSLR's, the K10D and a Minolta 7D (In my opinion one of the most underrated DSLR's ever produced and the reason Sony had such a great start with their DSLR's)

The K10D with all it's features, is without doubt the best value for money DSLR out there.

That said, lay out 100 slighty PP 8X10 and 11x14 coded printed images (using the same model printer) on tables, all taken at approx the same time by owners, of the same scene with a selection of DSLR's with MP's from 6-10, mix in a few 12mp camera's shots, all camera's shooting in jpeg and RAW with the same type lens, same settings. Then have a dozen so called experts (Pro's and Amateurs) pick out which camera took which image !!!!!!! It would be fun to watch the results.

I believe 8X10 and 11x14 are the most popular sizes for amateurs,

Bottom line, all the current DSLR's and yes even bridge camera's can process great images. It all comes down to brand loyalty, how much one is willing to spend, snobbery, or sheer hype. Throw in an excellent human eye and a good lens and we have it made.

Great Photographs are made with a Good Eye - Good Glass - Camera.

Just go out, shoot life and have fun doing it.

RG.


Last edited by maxamillion; 11-27-2007 at 09:39 PM.
11-27-2007, 06:09 PM   #35
Veteran Member
JamesD's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 536
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
And many other photographers suggest that RAW is to way to go. I agree with them. If I want JPEG output, I can do it from the RAW. Why throw away the detail and suffer through a white balance oops when RAW allows you to redo all those settings.

Check out the settings in the camera that only affect the JPEGs as converted. White Balance, Saturation, Contrast, the list is almost all of the digital only settings (compared to a film camera of similar capability). You need focus, exposure accuracty. The rest can be done later.
Hey... viva la difference! That's what makes the world turn round, eh?! lol

We each have our preferences. I sometimes shoot RAW (but rarely). I don't like to spend time in post processing and I haven't a lot of spare room anyway. But I can certainly understand the view of RAW only shooters. I was just trying to provide alternative viewpoints. And I think Mr. Rockwell made some decent points, albeit as I said, I don't completely agree. All the best.
11-29-2007, 09:34 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
caveat - I do not own the K10D (only the K100D) so take this FWIW -

I posted this in another thread and thought some may be relevant here -

dpReview 16. Photographic Tests of the K10D
under Overall Image Quality / Specifics - about 1/2 way down the page -
" Image sharpness / demosaicing (JPEG vs. RAW)
We were a little disappointed that the K10D's built-in image processor didn't deliver the crisp sharp edges which can be produced by shooting RAW and converting using a third party engine (such as Adobe Camera RAW). It's speculation but it does appear to me to be a combination of the type of demosaicing algorithm used (not isolating edge detail well enough) and the type of sharpening algorithm (as discussed earlier this appears to work to enhance the 'undershoot', the black side, of an edge). As we saw in the Image Parameters section of this review increasing sharpening only appears to increase the visibility of texture type detail rather than edge sharpness. "

I found this was the case even with post-processing - I downloaded the JPG and RAW samples shown on that page - then attempted to match the sharpness of the RAW sample by doing Sharpen and Unsharp Masking on the JPG sample - although I managed to get the JPG to be a bit crisper - I was NOT able to match the RAW sharpness.

from dpReview of the Canon 40D page 26 -

" There isn't a single camera on the market which gains so much by shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera RAW to convert its images than the K10D. The difference is night and day and indeed the K10D in this comparison trumps the EOS 40D for detail which hints perhaps that Pentax are using a sensor with a lighter anti-alias filter (although if you look at some of the crops you can see some demosaicing artifacts). "

Although RAW definitely has advantages -
it is NOT the simple panecea for all ills -
as this from the dpReview Conclusions of the K10D shows -

" When we reviewed the K100D we thought Pentax had got their image processing just right, however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.

Pentax may well have been aiming for a smooth film-like appearance but I at least feel that the inability to tweak this out by increasing sharpness is a mistake. That said it's unlikely you'll see this difference in any print up to A3 size, it's a 100% view thing so you have to decide if that's important to you or not. To get that absolute crisp appearance you'll need to shoot RAW, and use Adobe Camera RAW or another third party converter (as the supplied converter produces similar results to the camera). "
(my highlighing in blue )

This means if one uses the default RAW converter supplied by Pentax one gets basically similar results to the in-camera JPG - so to get get more optimal results one has to use either Adobe Camera RAW (or another third party converter) - extra expense and learn how to use it properly to get "better" results......

Lastly I'd also like to acknowledge Maxamillion's great shots of the hotrods - excellent pictures.
Not meaning to take anything away from those wonderful shots - they do not contain the fine (finicky) detail down to the pixel level that dpReview was complaining about -

Like dpReview said from above:
" That said it's unlikely you'll see this difference in any print up to A3 size, it's a 100% view thing so you have to decide if that's important to you or not. "
What has been repeated over and over, and in my experience is absolutely true, is that you can get very sharp (maybe even too sharp) in-camera jpegs by changing one or two default settings in the K10D menus.

I have tested this with a RAW shot by performing the in-camera jpeg development using various settings and the differences between default are significant and easily seen. When you shoot the shot in RAW and develop it in-camera using various settings, you can then do a 1:1 comparison of a Photoshop RAW-jpeg convesion and the various in-camera jpegs you developed.

Try it some time. The results are very interesting and show clearly that Phil is ful of BS on this subject.

Phil has tried to claim that he tests in default mode only and that he couldn't see any differences anyway, but when some recent Canon/Nikon comparisons left Nikon looking a little short, he tweaked the Nikon camera settings from default and showed the new (much improved for Nikon) comparisons which made the Nikon results much closer to the Canon.

After this I lost all respect for anything Phil has to say in any of his tests.

Ray
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, cameras, dslr, images, jpeg, k10d, pentax, photography, quality, slr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x vs K-m JPEG quality deadwolfbones Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 11-21-2009 08:47 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Jpeg compression quality Cambo Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 06-01-2008 03:19 AM
JPEG gallery quality Duncan J Murray Site Suggestions and Help 1 04-27-2008 02:38 PM
Pentax K10D - RAW or jpeg for maximum image quality? rrobinson54 Photographic Technique 31 09-09-2007 11:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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