[cornishk100duser]

Hi Sandra,
A very reasonable comment/question....however...please define a 'decent or proper photo' for me.
There in lies your answer, because photography is still an art form we will all have a preference, no matter the hardware used or indeed the software.

And thats what makes it what it is.
Cheers
Grant

The OP said in his post
"-Expanded Dynamic Range? Okay, this may come in handy for picky photographers or portraitists, but for the majority of us, there's Photoshop, GIMP, Aperture, Corel, etc.
-Custom image functions? This may just be my opinion, but whoop dee doo! Again, IMHO this is just for a picky photographer that doesn't want to post-process his/her pictures."


What happened before photoshop??
Photographers need to get all things correct as they were taking the photograph. Admittedly there may have been some pp'ing in the darkroom, but nt as much as we are able to do now.

I agree that if someone wants to spend most of their time infront of a computer screen then all they need is a cheap point and shoot, aim at whatever takes their fancy and alter the image out of all recognition in photoshop

[Ben_Edict]

Is that while processing in raw with the white balance on "Camera" or on a fixed value? I just wonder if it is not the white balance detection in the camera that is fluctuating, which should not affect the raw file. I remember reading some reviews of the k200d saying the white balance auto detect was not very good. That would influence the histogram if the white balance was taken from the exif data.

Though the Auto-WB is known (and I can easily testify to that) to be off sometimes, that is not the case under daylight conditions. In daylight I have rarely seen WB fluctuations exceeding 200 or 300 K, which is not really nice, but wouldn't influence exposure noticeably. The Auto-WB issue with basically all Pentax DSLRs is most obvious under artificial lighting, in which case you would also get the worst influence on exposure.

Ben

[Mallee Boy]

The OP said in his post
"-Expanded Dynamic Range? Okay, this may come in handy for picky photographers or portraitists, but for the majority of us, there's Photoshop, GIMP, Aperture, Corel, etc.
-Custom image functions? This may just be my opinion, but whoop dee doo! Again, IMHO this is just for a picky photographer that doesn't want to post-process his/her pictures."


What happened before photoshop??
Photographers need to get all things correct as they were taking the photograph. Admittedly there may have been some pp'ing in the darkroom, but nt as much as we are able to do now.

I agree that if someone wants to spend most of their time infront of a computer screen then all they need is a cheap point and shoot, aim at whatever takes their fancy and alter the image out of all recognition in photoshop

Hi Sandra,
My wife's family are pro photogs, in that they make their living from photography, and only photography...commercial, portraits, weddings, fine art ...the whole gambit, and now top end printing, Giclee, reproductions, restoration, limited editions etc. I well remember her mother talking about the hours she spent re-touching photo's in the film days before printing and how she thought the digital age was easy by comparison.

It (pp) in one form or another has been going on for a long, long time.

[roelof]

Though the Auto-WB is known (and I can easily testify to that) to be off sometimes, that is not the case under daylight conditions. In daylight I have rarely seen WB fluctuations exceeding 200 or 300 K, which is not really nice, but wouldn't influence exposure noticeably. The Auto-WB issue with basically all Pentax DSLRs is most obvious under artificial lighting, in which case you would also get the worst influence on exposure.
Ben

OK, so the wb setting, while not part of the data in the raw file is used for metering? So having the correct wb setting matters while shooting and is not only a pp issue.

I am still trying to get a grip on what is saved in raw, how much happens in post / jpg concersion, and how much processed-raw data is used for metering. All new stuff for me

[Ben_Edict]

The OP said in his post
"-Expanded Dynamic Range? Okay, this may come in handy for picky photographers or portraitists, but for the majority of us, there's Photoshop, GIMP, Aperture, Corel, etc.
-Custom image functions? This may just be my opinion, but whoop dee doo! Again, IMHO this is just for a picky photographer that doesn't want to post-process his/her pictures."

What happened before photoshop??
Photographers need to get all things correct as they were taking the photograph. Admittedly there may have been some pp'ing in the darkroom, but nt as much as we are able to do now.

I agree that if someone wants to spend most of their time infront of a computer screen then all they need is a cheap point and shoot, aim at whatever takes their fancy and alter the image out of all recognition in photoshop

Sandra, I have a completely different opinion on that. In film days as with digital to have the best result, you need to be as correct as possible when the shutter clicks. And I never had a single image in the wet darkroom, that I would not "post-process" heavily, beginning with the choice of the paper gradation over cropping, dodging/burning, right through choosing the best chemistry for the purpose.

That simply took much more time, than post-processing onscreen. Sometimes I spent two days until one final print was to my satisfaction.

So, there is no real difference in my (and many other photogs) approach towards picture making today, compared to yesteryear. Then as now, making really good images with a (D)SLR always afforded much more knowledge, than using a point-and-shoot, which where always pre-set by the manufacturer to give an acceptable result under 95 % of circumstances. And during the remaining 5 % of occasions, the typical p-s-shooter wouldn't grab his camera anyway.

What did and does that mean in practice: In film days p-s-cameras overexposed by about 1 EV, because they were usually used with negative film, which takes overexposure better, than underexposure. Thus the manufacturers generally increased exposure beyond, what would be optimal. But people never really complained, because most people will not readily recognize the difference between a correctly exposed image and an overexposed one.
And that is exactly the same today with digital: the p-s-cameras err on the bright side, to retain shadow detail, because the typical p-s-shooter wants to recognize the faces of his family, even if he shot directly in front of a bright background and forgot to use the flash. If the bright background gets completely washed out, that doesn't get noticed, because this is not the important part of the image.

(D)SLRs always have followed a completely different route i exposure matters, because photogs, who use a (D)SLR usually have different preferences. And thus they need a tool, that does not automatically interfere with their decisions on exposure.

All in all, I would rewrite your last sentence to the exact contrary:

If a photog does NOT wish to do any kind of post-processing, he should buy a good point-and-shoot-camera!
Because out of the camera he gets images, that are exposed to show his beloved subjects, are sharpened massively and maybe colour corrected to whatever standard.

Ben

[fest3er]

... Yes pentax may require a bit more work, but the results are, IMHO, better than anything the other camera companies have to offer at twice the price! ...

The way I look at it, if you want easy, buy a P&S and accept the potentially marginal quality. If you want very good quality at a reasonable price, buy a Pentax and put some effort into your pictures. If you want both easy and very good quality, open your camera bag, take out your checkbook, and hire a reputable professional photographer who'll do the work for you.

My old camera is a 6-year-old Sony F707 (my first digital camera), an OK camera for taking snapshots, but really very limited in usefulness and quality; Sony is a marketing company, much like Microsoft, and the quality of both companies' products are comparable. My original camera is a 23-year-old Pentax SuperProgram, which *always* took pretty darned nice pictures with whatever film I put in it. But I want to take more pictures, both easier and of higher quality; the Sony just ain't good enough and film is too slow, feedback-wise.

For me, the decision was easy. I wanted to buy the best camera I could for a reasonable price. The K20 fits that nicely. It may well be the last camera I ever buy. The K10D was OK when I looked at cameras months ago, just OK. The K20D was better enough, and I was ready to buy. I'm not dissatisfied with it; but then, I've hardly used it yet. I've a couple cousins getting married 9/20 and 10/10; I'll be taking hundred of 'memory' pictures to put on DVDs for them. They'll be a mix of lower-quality snapshots and higher-quality portraits. I'll shoot them all at 14.6 MP because I will capture some gems and they'll have the option of getting large prints of the gems. The K10D, based on specs alone, wasn't good enough for what I 'wanted'. The K20D pretty much is. That's why I bought it.

There are two kinds of people. Those who make decisions, and those who don't. The ones who don't make decisions will never be satisfied with anything they buy. The ones who do make decisions will be satisfied with their purchases and will upgrade when a newer product will give them more satisfaction. I never regretted buying the SuperProgram. Nor have I ever regretted buying the Sony. And I won't regret buying the K20D, even though I almost experienced an 'Aaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' of total dismay and dejection when my vintage KR lens got stuck on the brand-new K20D, without having snapped a single picture.

I think the only people who would consider the K20D overrated are those who bought something else and need to convince themselves that they didn't make a mistake or need to convince themselves to be satisfied being 'year-behinders'. The rest of us know that we have a tool that will capture just about any picture or scene we want, sometimes with more effort, sometimes with less.

N