[rayallen]

I'm not selling my Tamron 70-300 until I learn to get pictures as good as yours. It looks like it's going to stay for a while...
And this was taken at 300mm!

Thank you for your kind compliment, CR. Practice, practice, practice. Just keep trying, you will get there!

[glinda]

That’s a good lens , the 16-50 . It’s a prime lens in a zoom body : )
This k10d is a good camera.
I have to figure out the white balance , there’s a way to fine tune auto white balance , according to the manual,
Haven’t tackled that yet , or know if it is only per shot , or an adjustment that solves most shots ... or the white wall per shot as suggested ... or ... , I have to shoot raw, but always would rather not bother with raw.
That’s just me .

Interesting trying to figure things out , : )

I'm not selling my Tamron 70-300 until I learn to get pictures as good as yours. It looks like it's going to stay for a while...
And this was taken at 300mm!



AF in artificial light hasn't been fixed in Pentax bodies until the K-5 II. And I also think it was particularly bad with the K10D, that blue cast is something I get quite often as well - but only when checking the back display, because I only shoot RAW with that camera, and as soon as I open it in RawTherapee, the software picks the right WB 99% of the time...

This is one I had to fix. I took it just now because since I'm a part of the K10D conversation, so I might as well take some K10D pictures
This is with the DA*16-50mm, first time I use this combo - to see what a pro setup would have felt like in 2006... Feels pretty good actually!



And some tomatoes from the garden...

[rayallen]

I have to figure out the white balance , there’s a way to fine tune auto white balance , according to the manual,
Haven’t tackled that yet , or know if it is only per shot , or an adjustment that solves most shots ... or the white wall per shot as suggested ... or ... , I have to shoot raw, but always would rather not bother with raw.
That’s just me .

Interesting trying to figure things out , : )

I have a K10D and a K-3 and I get good results from both using AWB almost all of the time. Is that not working for you?
If you are not getting the results you are after I would suggest using AWB and shooting RAW and JPEG (that's what I do in all my cameras). If you are happy with the JPEG then fine. If not, WB adjustment is simple in RAW. Well, it is in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). HTH.

[rayallen]

More of the local wildlife - a water dragon on my front lawn. K10D and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.0 DC Macro HSM. RAW file created using AWB and processed in ACR and PSCC.

[glinda]

Thanks, I’m going to try auto WB again , with some different lenses...

learning the camera .

I like this camera.

One of their best I think . For quality . K5 was kind of weird about white balance sometimes , even the k5ii s . As well , the ones I had anyway. Playing .....

Jpeg + raw might be what I end up doing . : )

I have a K10D and a K-3 and I get good results from both using AWB almost all of the time. Is that not working for you?
If you are not getting the results you are after I would suggest using AWB and shooting RAW and JPEG (that's what I do in all my cameras). If you are happy with the JPEG then fine. If not, WB adjustment is simple in RAW. Well, it is in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). HTH.

[cometguy]

More of the local wildlife - a water dragon on my front lawn. K10D and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.0 DC Macro HSM. RAW file created using AWB and processed in ACR and PSCC.

I'd love to see what the original, non-processed photo looks like for comparison...

---------- Post added 09-03-20 at 09:43 AM ----------



---------- Post added 09-03-20 at 09:44 AM ----------

RAW files need different software against JPEG that can be handled with free software like GIMP.

I'm thinking of trying GIMP. Are you saying that RAW files can be handled with GIMP, or are you inferring that only JPEGs can?
thanks in advance

[paulh]

More of the local wildlife - a water dragon on my front lawn. K10D and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.0 DC Macro HSM. RAW file created using AWB and processed in ACR and PSCC.

Nice shot, Ray. It looks a lot like our Texas horned frog, minus the horns. How big is it?

[rayallen]

Nice shot, Ray. It looks a lot like our Texas horned frog, minus the horns. How big is it?

Thanks, Paul. He would have been about 16 or 17 inches from nose to tail. We have lots of them running through the gardens here and he is by no means the largest.

Here's an earlier larger one taken in April with the Tamron 70-300mm. He would have been at least 2 feet long. Not in my garden.



---------- Post added 04-09-20 at 08:21 AM ----------

I'd love to see what the original, non-processed photo looks like for comparison...

Here is the resized JPG SOOC:

[glinda]

Still experimenting. 7200 kelvin, Fa 50/1.7

[rayallen]

That shot with the tampon is very nice . Depth to it.

How did you know what to change the greens , or color or white balance to , in the processed shot .
If it’s not too involved .

Just by eye ?

I often wonder if what I see , on my computer or iPad , is what ends up others see on whatever they view on... much like how does one know what each individual actually sees for color .

Is your blue sky , my blue sky , etc...

Thank you, glinda. I prefer to call the lens a Tamron.

I am working with a calibrated 23" Dell monitor. I shot with AWB and did not change the white balance from 5150 Kelvin as chosen by the camera. As the image was taken back in April I don't recall exactly how it was processed but I probably took my normal approach and that is to click on Auto and then make a few tweaks to get it looking the way I want. I did not change any individual colours. I was able to check that. I processed it in Lightroom Classic.
The final settings were: Exposure -0.35, Contrast 0, Highlights -30, Shadows +87, Whites +40, Blacks -10 and Dehaze +29. Sharpening +78.

What I see on my monitor is the same in Lightroom and on Flickr and that is the source of the image shown on the forum. You are correct in that I can't see what is on your computer screen nor on your iPad.

I hope that helps a little. The above settings would be the same if I had used ACR in Photoshop.

[glinda]

Thanks , That’s helpful ..

Lately I use the iPad , almost exclusively.
It’s convenient..

However , there’s a little A. I. Being inside it ( these times we live in ...) that obviously gets its kicks from changing words ... It’s a constant battle .....

Although .......

: )

Thank you, glinda. I prefer to call the lens a Tamron.

I am working with a calibrated 23" Dell monitor. I shot with AWB and did not change the white balance from 5150 Kelvin as chosen by the camera. As the image was taken back in April I don't recall exactly how it was processed but I probably took my normal approach and that is to click on Auto and then make a few tweaks to get it looking the way I want. I did not change any individual colours. I was able to check that. I processed it in Lightroom Classic.
The final settings were: Exposure -0.35, Contrast 0, Highlights -30, Shadows +87, Whites +40, Blacks -10 and Dehaze +29. Sharpening +78.

What I see on my monitor is the same in Lightroom and on Flickr and that is the source of the image shown on the forum. You are correct in that I can't see what is on your computer screen nor on your iPad.

I hope that helps a little. The above settings would be the same if I had used ACR in Photoshop.

[glinda]

Fa 50/1.7
Back to auto white balance ...

[subsea]

Hi, Glinda,

To me that's pretty good for a start. On my new computer screen (which I'm still getting used to), it looks like it's got a little bit of a green tint to it, probably due to some mixed illumination. I think that I'd make some small adjustments to the temperature/tint to remove that and, in my humble opinion, the color would be perfect.

[Patriot]

Light Fantasy

Upper Antelope Canyon, Arizona

Pentax K10D
smc PENTAX-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED

[subsea]

Garden in Ruthin Castle in Wales, 2013. K-10D and FA 28-80mm.