Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-11-2007, 04:52 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 239
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
I did a test, lets leave it at that. I'll shoot in raw regardless because theres much more control. Point is "bright tone" does not make it sharper, it increases the image curve (which you can do later easily) to somewhat of an S-Curve, what this does is increase the contrast, makes the highlights brighter and the shadows bolder.
No offence meant, but isn't the test supposed to be the base of discussion? BTW I'd rather not agree about what you said about Bright Tone mode... But that's my opinion, I cannot prove it. But well, now I really want to find out. As soon as I'll get a bright day, I'll make some shots in both modes and compare them... Or course I'll share the results.

12-11-2007, 05:07 PM   #17
Veteran Member
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 330
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Snowcat Quote
No offence meant, but isn't the test supposed to be the base of discussion? BTW I'd rather not agree about what you said about Bright Tone mode... But that's my opinion, I cannot prove it. But well, now I really want to find out. As soon as I'll get a bright day, I'll make some shots in both modes and compare them... Or course I'll share the results.
Just seems like some people are wanting me to alter the jpeg setting in the camera to a much more in-camera processed as if pushing the settings to the limit in order to compare. Why is it not the default setting if its more desirable for most people? I figured that it was only fair to use a typical out of the box setting than to tweak everything to hell if you know what I mean.

I at least gave the settings, if anyone else wants to attempt the same with Raw+ shooting mode, and just make some changes, feel free to do so. The point is compared to everything else I shot, the out-of-camera jpeg is not as desirable to me in terms of sharpness as the other brands I've shot in their default settings. Which case it would seem to me that the usual method of shooting in raw mode is more beneficial for more reasons than just flexibility, but because the jpeg defaults seem subpar (perception and opinion of course).
12-11-2007, 07:00 PM   #18
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
Stop digging

QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
While it's pointless to quibble terminology, you go into the menu and you just see icons for tones. So cuse me if I don't know the terminology for it.
Since you are new here and clearly new to the camera, I will let some of your condescending comments go for the time being, but I would suggest you read the manual and understand what "Natural Tone" and "Bright Tone" actually do before lecturing the rest of us.

To quote from page P120

Natural Tone "Images are finished naturally and suitable for retouching"
Bright Tone "Images are finished brightly, with high contrast and sharpness"

A year or so ago when some of us actually got our cameras we checked exactly what this meant. In effect, the default sharpness, contrast and saturation is higher for bright tone mode than it is for natural tone mode. Sharpness at bright +0 is approximately the same as Natural +2. We also ran hundreds of comparisons of RAW converters vs JPEG modes, so thankyou for your additional insight but to be honest the issue gets a lot more complex and has been discussed and great length by many people on the forum.

Furthermore I am quite well aware of the advantages of RAW and I use it 100% of the time, but RAW is simply another image processor with more control. ACR by default adds quite a lot of detail and edge enhancement, which is OK for default prints but not as good as doing it yourself using multiple radius passes in photoshop, which is why I generally like to do it AFTER I finish editing the image and not before. As a result I generally turn it off in the RAW processor which I use mainly for exposure, abberation and WB correction before saving as a an unsharpened 16 BIT TIFF as the basis for detailed editing prior to printing.

Similarly, if downsizing an image, oversharpening of the base image leaves to serious artifacts in the downsized image. Its therefore best to downsize an unsharpened image and then sharpen it rather than the other way round.

For post-processing work I actually found the best JPEG image setting for the K10D to be natural and sharpening -3.

And thanks, I have used a number of Canon models and have post-processed and printed hundreds of Canon images on behalf of friends of mine, and I know exactly what the pros and cons are. I prefer the images from Nikons which have less default sharpening applied which makes it easier to optimise for printing. The presensce of haloes in the default images from the 400D (and to a lesser extent the 30D and 5D) makes it quite difficult. Of course they look fine printed directly, but not as good as if they are optimally sharpened for the output size.
12-11-2007, 07:17 PM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 91
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Just seems like some people are wanting me to alter the jpeg setting in the camera to a much more in-camera processed as if pushing the settings to the limit in order to compare. Why is it not the default setting if its more desirable for most people? I figured that it was only fair to use a typical out of the box setting than to tweak everything to hell if you know what I mean.

I at least gave the settings, if anyone else wants to attempt the same with Raw+ shooting mode, and just make some changes, feel free to do so. The point is compared to everything else I shot, the out-of-camera jpeg is not as desirable to me in terms of sharpness as the other brands I've shot in their default settings. Which case it would seem to me that the usual method of shooting in raw mode is more beneficial for more reasons than just flexibility, but because the jpeg defaults seem subpar (perception and opinion of course).
I wondered about much of the same and found the following information:

Bright Tone vs Natural Tone: The K10d defaults to natural. Reportedly this gives photo's a smoother, more film like appearance. A common complaint is that digitals tend to produce harsh photos compared with film. Pentax did this on purpose.

The problem is that reviewers and you and I can quantify sharpness, and often equate sharper with better. It's not better, it's all relative. But if you want the jpeg to be less processed out of the camera, switch to "Bright" tone. It's pretty easy to take three versions - raw, jpeg natural, jpeg bright, and see that the "bright" is closest to the raw depiction.

I'm guessing that Pentax was not really marketing the K10d to the P&S converts that are accustomed to shooting as it comes out of the box. Heck, I can't think of anything that I use at it's default settings - cars, stereos, televisions, etc. Why would a camera be any different?

12-11-2007, 07:18 PM   #20
Veteran Member
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 330
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Furthermore I am quite well aware of the advantages of RAW and I use it 100% of the time, but RAW is simply another image processor with more control. ACR by default adds quite a lot of detail and edge enhancement, which is OK for default prints but not as good as doing it yourself using multiple radius passes in photoshop, which is why I generally like to do it AFTER I finish editing the image and not before. As a result I generally turn it off in the RAW processor which I use mainly for exposure, abberation and WB correction before saving as a an unsharpened 16 BIT TIFF as the basis for detailed editing prior to printing.
Raw is a file format of 'raw data', and I don't use ACR, but rather Capture One Pro, and I modify as I see fit. Its better to make any adjustments in the raw processor before conversion as you'll maximize the signal-to-noise ratio as well as dynamic range that you work with after the downsampling.

Somewhat just sounds like you use the raw processor as merely a converter. Which would explain why you seem to think you can get a wider range of flexibility from the jpeg as opposed to the raw.
12-11-2007, 07:20 PM   #21
Veteran Member
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 330
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rogerstg Quote
The problem is that reviewers and you and I can quantify sharpness, and often equate sharper with better. It's not better, it's all relative. But if you want the jpeg to be less processed out of the camera, switch to "Bright" tone. It's pretty easy to take three versions - raw, jpeg natural, jpeg bright, and see that the "bright" is closest to the raw depiction.

Shrugs, I merely expect the edge to have a marginal increase in sharpness from the default jpeg. Also I shoot 35mm, 6x6 MF, and 4x5 film, so I know what 'film like' is.
12-11-2007, 07:44 PM   #22
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Raw is a file format of 'raw data', and I don't use ACR, but rather Capture One Pro, and I modify as I see fit. Its better to make any adjustments in the raw processor before conversion as you'll maximize the signal-to-noise ratio as well as dynamic range that you work with after the downsampling.

Somewhat just sounds like you use the raw processor as merely a converter. Which would explain why you seem to think you can get a wider range of flexibility from the jpeg as opposed to the raw.
Do you EVER read what other people say before you go blundering in? Apparently not. I did not say any of the things you just quoted me as saying, in fact quite the opposite. RAW converters are fine for part of the processing, but other parts are better done in photoshop or specialised plugins ESPECIALLY sharpening.

Sharpening in a RAW converter will not find "new" detail, it will just make existing detail look sharper. You can do this just as easily in Photoshop with more control. On the other hand, RAW converters are much better places to do other corrections which affect the tonal range of the image such as exposure correction and highlight control. If you need to do a curves adjustment, its best to do that in RAW as well.

So next time why dont you read what people say before getting on your high horse and teaching them to suck eggs?
12-11-2007, 08:00 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 313
QuoteOriginally posted by rogerstg Quote
It's not better, it's all relative. But if you want the jpeg to be less processed out of the camera, switch to "Bright" tone.

Bright, Natural, Bright, Natural...blah blah blah...

It's the type of sharpening we are permitted to have in-camera. Owners of the K10D are given only one type of sharpening in-camera - dark side textural sharpening. This makes a great default if you want the results it provides.

Other cameras give you edge/USM sharpening. If Pentax gave this as a menu option by a new sharpening algorithm introduced by firmware, this continual issue would be over.

It should be the photographers choice as to which style of sharpening works best for their needs, and where the photo will ultimately be used. Some absolutely need all the benefits of the K10D IQ, but have instances where they just don't have the time or memory space for RAW.

I wonder if the beta testers of the new K20D have noticed if Pentax has addressed this particular non-ending jpg sharpening issue. Supposedly it has more jpg tweaking choices - I wonder if this is one of them.

Obviously Pentax must see that the few that loudly post that jpgs are fine, and print good, etc. is just not making what enough see in front of their eyes to just forget the issue.

If a majority of people are fully satisfied with jpg sharpness output on other cameras to the point where there are never any complaints - giving an indication of what makes customers happy, - And Pentax makes the decision for its customers in offering only an alternate type - without the possibility of the more popular type at least being a choice, it just creates unneeded issues.

The textural sharpness should have been an alternate choice touted as a feature others don't have which works better for printing. - Not as the only choice we have.

12-12-2007, 12:29 PM   #24
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 91
QuoteOriginally posted by mutley Quote
Bright, Natural, Bright, Natural...blah blah blah...

It's the type of sharpening we are permitted to have in-camera. Owners of the K10D are given only one type of sharpening in-camera - dark side textural sharpening. ...
Other cameras give you edge/USM sharpening.
Why the big deal about in camera sharpening? Isn't that just a crutch for people that don't understand the camera tone settings and/or don't focus properly?

The fact that many folks rely on in-camera sharpening while in natural mode (which lessens sharpness) seems pretty strange to me.
12-12-2007, 05:49 PM   #25
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Shrugs, I merely expect the edge to have a marginal increase in sharpness from the default jpeg. Also I shoot 35mm, 6x6 MF, and 4x5 film, so I know what 'film like' is.
I don't understand this obsession w/ sharp jpg since "sharpening" is 1)pretty standard practice. 2)Amounts depend on the image and use 3)sharpning may be needed in different "phases" of processing. Maybe I just read too much and owning a "D" (which has to be considered Pentax's "least sharp" camera due to a heavy AA filter) which could never probably be "good enough" (very much a personal opinion) out of the box so to speak.
Sharpening is a critical step in digital imaging, yet few of us are satisfied with the results. Using research he conducted for a commercial sharpening product, Bruce Fraser argues for a new approach to sharpening that's based on three imaging phases: capture, creative, and output.
So I just prefer my RAW (didn't buy a Polaroid you know) and sharpen as needed, and for me it's always needed........
Some more from the late Mr. Fraser..... I'm sure a lot of pros would agree w/ his philosophy..
creativepro.com - Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow
Maybe things are better now than before......but some of my printed images have been sharpened to the point of "scarey" but print fine...
12-13-2007, 08:44 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Jodokast96's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Erial, NJ USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,133
Photoclub Alpha Blog Archive True detail vs. fake sharpness

An interesting article I found on another forum.
12-13-2007, 07:15 PM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 91
This thread made me register after reading the board since July. It really confused me since I went from a K100 to the K10 and haven't experimented much with it yet.

If I want sharp pictures out of the camera w/o PP, bright tone with not saturation, no contrast and no sharpening adjustments should be made? You guys lost me. I try to PP the least amount of images I can and only shoot RAW when the pic really matters to me where I know I can make the extra adjustments.
12-13-2007, 08:42 PM   #28
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by FuzzyOne Quote
This thread made me register after reading the board since July. It really confused me since I went from a K100 to the K10 and haven't experimented much with it yet.

If I want sharp pictures out of the camera w/o PP, bright tone with not saturation, no contrast and no sharpening adjustments should be made? You guys lost me. I try to PP the least amount of images I can and only shoot RAW when the pic really matters to me where I know I can make the extra adjustments.
IF I remember correctly "Bright tone" is equivalent to +2 sharpness in "natural" mode.
As to saturation and contrast, find the image in the "natural" matrix equivalent to the center image in the "bright" matrix in this thread (0,0 contrast,saturation)......
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/14585-k10d-contras...gs-matrix.html
12-14-2007, 06:15 AM   #29
Veteran Member
attack11's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 659
QuoteOriginally posted by Snowcat Quote
Hmmm for an ordinary user, such as most of us are, does it REALLY matters what Bright tone is doing really? Personally I have no idea about it. All i can say it is definetely not a higher saturation as it probably should be. And i do know what exactly is saturation, contast, brightness and so on. Still i cannot say what exacly the image processor in the K10D doing to images in this mode. It gives me the images I really want to see in the end, and that's all that matters for me. So why not test in-camera JPEGs in that mode? And, in the end, why not use it?
it's a saturation boost, which you could achieve better with filters or even a velvia film plugin. if you want the best from your camera turn off all processing (zero everything) and sharpen in photoshop with a smart sharpen in cs3, or an unsharpen mask in cs2.
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, click, dslr, image, jpeg, jpg, photography, photoshop, rez, sharpness, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG sterretje Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-13-2010 02:06 AM
K10d - Aperture Number error- JPEG/RAW najo Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-27-2009 03:52 PM
Unprocessed RAW v JPEG print test Ashley Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 01-15-2009 02:56 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 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 06:29 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