[audiobomber]

Lately I've been using Bright for any picture without people in it. For people pictures I use Natural. Why did you go with -1 Contrast in the Natural image?

[Adam67]

Depends which monitor I'm looking at...

(On mine I prefer natural).

LOL! good point.

[Adam67]

it is quite obvious that most would prefer Natural in this shot.

To get serious about image quality, one should really be well acquainted with the performance of one's photo equipment, which i find quite an overwhelming undertaking.

Specifically, there are two sets of variables, camera body and lens.

For the modern dslr body alone, the matrix of image quality variance is simply mind boggling, natural/bright x saturation x sharpness x contrast x white balance x +/-EV ....

And coupling with 2 to 3 zooms, each exhibiting variance in contrast, color, exposure bias, sweet spots, DOF behaviour ...

I am wondering how can one ever manage ?

Which reminds me the K10d do offer the User Define mode which should be helpful in calibrating the camera to the characteristics of different lens ... is anyone taking the trouble to do that ? Is this a valid thought?

Or would it make life much easier if one just rely on photo editing for controlling image rendering ?
And in doing do, would it make you feel more like a painter than a photographer ? Does it still make sense choosing a camera or lens for its colors ?

Just get in focus and in the ballpark on exposure and then post process

[Jewelltrail]

I think audiobomber’s comments are very applicable here, particularly since skin tone plays such a large role in this shot. I also think dylansalt’s comments on post processing are on the money. Clearly, from those speaking up here, we prefer a more “natural” appearance. Continuing with audiobomber's thought, I think "natural" mode, for potrait shots, would usually be preferred in comparisons like these.


"Humanity subdues inhumanity as water subdues fire."

Mencius 6A:18

[mcjm78]

The natural one just look .... natural on my monitor. I get a bit of a blue cast on the bright tone. I'm changing my K20D to natural now as I type.... should have spend more time experimenting.

[Robert Barnett]

That those natural/bright options affected RAW images. If you faked it in a RAW processing program by making adjustments there to supposedly match the differences in the in camera settings when using natural or bright then this comparison is totally pointless. Each RAW processing program handles these things completely different. It is near impossible to load even the same raw image in to 5 different raw programs, make the same settings, export them and get the same look from each image. This applies even more to the adjustments in the camera.

Since the natural/bright only affect JPG this is a totally useless compare of the natural/bright options. Raw is called raw because it is the unmessed with data raw from the image sensor. That means no saturation, no brightness, no contrast, no sharpening, etc.

Robert

[Robert Barnett]

I missed the "converted from the same RAW file in-camera" however, since the bright and natural setting has no effect on the RAW I still maintain that your faked (done in camera or not) is illrelevent. If you want to see the true difference between natural and bright you have to shoot JPG. Shooting RAW and then faking the adjustments is exactly that faking it and it doesn't represent the true differences between the natural and bright settings would be.

Robert

[Rusty]

Natural looks better in the skin tone and hair colour.

Rusty