[cwood]

Of course I agree with limitations of K10D as stated. On the other hand, this did not take too much work, and I did not bother with the really obvious vertical banding on the right side since that too would be easy enough to mitigate. About ten minutes total...

Probably does not measure up with expectations. Still, I see this picture as far from unsaveable.

Actually, Heather, if you are serious, I probably would consider a backup K10D...

Woof

Nice job on the fix up. I like what you did. Although looking back I see I was not totally clear - What I meant was I did all I could "IN CAMERA" to save the photo. Shooting a 300mm at F2.8; at 1/60; and at ISO1600 (PP +1). Post processing further can fix all sorts of problems but I prefer to spend more time shooting and less time in photoshop.

[woof]

Nice job on the fix up. I like what you did. Although looking back I see I was not totally clear - What I meant was I did all I could "IN CAMERA" to save the photo. Shooting a 300mm at F2.8; at 1/60; and at ISO1600 (PP +1). Post processing further can fix all sorts of problems but I prefer to spend more time shooting and less time in photoshop.

Sorry. Understood as to IN CAMERA now...

>> I prefer to spend more time shooting and less time in photoshop

As an avid film shooter this is actually my preference as well, even for digital. The fact that I CAN do it does not necessarily mean I like to do it, and it sure would be painful if you had 100-200 of these lined up from a low light high ISO shoot.

woof!

[Marc Sabatella]

Nice job on the fix up.

Indeed, especially seeing the starting point was a pretty low resolution JPEG.

What I meant was I did all I could "IN CAMERA" to save the photo. Shooting a 300mm at F2.8; at 1/60; and at ISO1600 (PP +1). Post processing further can fix all sorts of problems but I prefer to spend more time shooting and less time in photoshop.

OK, but I assume by PP + 1 you mean you pushed it a stop in ACR. In which case, also applying a little NR an perhaps a curve wouldn't take that much longer - especially if you create a present to do all of those for you, and then you can batch apply it to as many images as you like in a matter of seconds.

I would note that the image I posted didn't look like that straight from the camera either, nor do most of really impressive high ISO images you might see posted. And apparently, neither did yours, as you pushed it a stop in PP.

[Marc Sabatella]

it sure would be painful if you had 100-200 of these lined up from a low light high ISO shoot.

With any decent RAW processing program, you'd spend 30 seconds getting one of the images looking decent, then select the rest and hit a button to copy those same settings to all of them at once.

[audiobomber]

I can just tell you that on upgrading from the DS to the K200D, my pictures got better. They could be considered noisier only if you view at 100% - which is to say, if you blow the K200D image up bigger. Viewed at the same size, there is no visible difference in noise, and the K200D clearly holds more detail (as should be expected). I've been shooting in jazz clubs for several years now, and there is no question in my mind that images I get from the K200D are as clean as and more detailed than those I got from the DS.

Comparing a camera with SR vs one without on low light photos is hardly apples to apples.

[woof]

With any decent RAW processing program, you'd spend 30 seconds getting one of the images looking decent, then select the rest and hit a button to copy those same settings to all of them at once.

Marc, what do you recommend?

[Marc Sabatella]

Comparing a camera with SR vs one without on low light photos is hardly apples to apples.

True. Indeed, much of the improvement I see overall is due to SR, since I now get more "keepers". But I'm not talking about overall improvement - I'm talking about specifically about noise and its relationship to resolution. And I've tested this in controlled situations with tripod and no SR and verified what I have described. what I saw in those tests matches perfectly what I see in my pictures from jazz clubs - there extra detail in my K200D is not the result of SR, but rather the simply result of higher resolution, and the overall noise levels are basically the same. I've also made the same comparison using my wife's K100D (with SR), and come to the same conclusion - noise on the k200D is simply *not* any more problematic than on the K100D when images are viewed at the same size, and the bottom line is, the K200D images clearly contain more detail.

[Marc Sabatella]

Marc, what do you recommend?

The standard choices would include Photoshop (either CS or Elements; both support this use model), Lightroom, Aperture, ACDSee Pro, Lightzone, and I think Bibble. There are probably others too. Perhaps at this point anything *except* the Pentax software would allow for what I described.

[lisicai]

WMBP: Amazon has already stopped the price match we so much come to love. No more price match, as I was told by a CSR from India. This new policy started on September 1st.

[WMBP]

WMBP: Amazon has already stopped the price match we so much come to love. No more price match, as I was told by a CSR from India. This new policy started on September 1st.

Oh, I'm very sorry to hear that.

Well, it still seems to be true that Amazon often has the lowest price, especially if you consider that shipping from Amazon is usually very reasonable (at least within the USA).

Will

[Sanglant]

just something you might want to try, noise ninja

oh and bibble has it built in

james