Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-17-2008, 10:41 PM   #1
Forum Member
jdg's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cavite, Philippines
Posts: 85
k100d jpeg

Are you guy's happy with the jpeg quality the k100d produces or do you still post process the images? i always tweak the levels and apply a little unsharpmask to my images just to make it a little better co'z they look dull out of the camera or maybe it's my fault i'm still a newbie at using a dslr and also at photography.

sample images:

original photo out of the cam


post processed


11-18-2008, 08:22 AM   #2
Veteran Member
dws1117's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spring, TX.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,157
I used to have the k100 but upgraded to the k200 earlier in the year and I've been satisfied for the most part with jpg quality out of the camera. I'll do minimal post processing.

That said my photos are basically snapshots. There is no money being made through my camera and since my photography isn't there to put food on the table I don't want to spend a lot of time jacking with tons of photos. It's for this reason that I don't shoot in RAW.

On the rare occasions that I'll do a family portrait (such as a family portrait for Christmas cards for my sister in law) or portraits of neighbor's kids then I'll shoot RAW and spend more time in PP. For my own family and daily snapshots JPG from the camera is more than fine. Only you know what will satisfy you.
11-18-2008, 08:29 AM   #3
Veteran Member
dws1117's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spring, TX.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,157
Hope you don't mind, but I did a small touch up with you pic, For my taste I would crop out most of the left side as those elements are distracting and bring the focus to the two larger flowers. There is also a touch of brightening. I am far from an expert expert and I'm sure others will be able to give better advice.
Attached Images
 
11-18-2008, 09:53 AM   #4
Forum Member
lunelson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 80
I'm always a fan of post-processing. In the example you posted, though, it looks like the photo was somewhat underexposed, so you can't really blame the JPEG output as much as the exposure being off.

11-18-2008, 09:54 AM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Redmond, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 228
I guess it depends on what the photos going to be used for. I don't shoot much jpg anymore...was OK with them mostly when I was doing it (usually did some sort of tweaking since I'm still learning quite a bit), but I've gotten pretty used to PP the raw files now, and adjusting them is much easier.
11-18-2008, 09:56 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
Try shooting RAW, batch convert to Tiff using PPL with -1 contrast, -1 saturation and no sharpening (-3).

Open in favourite software. You now have a really great baseline to work with without having a file that is already sharpened and saved.
11-18-2008, 11:56 AM   #7
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
I assume the lens is the 18-55mm? My copy underexposes like this.
11-18-2008, 01:09 PM   #8
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I assume the lens is the 18-55mm? My copy underexposes like this.
This shot is *not* really underexposed in the technical sense - it averages out to a little darker than an 18% gray card, exactly as it should. However, it is a good example of a scene for which positive compensation would indeed be likely to yield a more aesthetically pleasing picture in most people's subjective opinion.

I'd personally have pushed the exposure half a stop in the camera, which may actually have clipped some highlights, but only barely. Then I'd have gone in and recovered the highlights if necessary in PP (I shoot RAW, so this would be possible - not so much so with JPEG). Then I'd look to see if I needed to tweak the curves to improve contrast. I do this quite a bit, but to my eye, the OP went a little too far.

In any case, assuming the the exact exposure and curves produced by the camera are the best possible results is foolish. Use out-of-camera JPEG if you like for the sake of convenience, but they'll *never* be optimal on any camera, because this stuff is just far too subjective.

11-18-2008, 02:19 PM   #9
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
How do you have your settings in camera? I like a "well saturated" shot, so I bumped up my saturation, contrast and sharpness a touch as my default and liked the result. Play with your settings and see what you like. That's why they're there. Only you know what you like.
11-19-2008, 03:22 AM   #10
jdg
Forum Member
jdg's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cavite, Philippines
Posts: 85
Original Poster
My camera is set to contrast = hard, saturation = high saturation, sharpness = hard.
11-19-2008, 05:20 AM   #11
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
QuoteOriginally posted by jdg Quote
Natural or bright? What's the lens? Do you have another lens to compare with?
11-19-2008, 09:38 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,915
QuoteOriginally posted by dws1117 Quote
I don't want to spend a lot of time jacking with tons of photos. It's for this reason that I don't shoot in RAW.
You can convert RAW to jpg in a batch. Come back from dinner and it's done. If you want it even quicker, "Extract a Jpg" in Photo Browser (not Photo Lab). Make a cup of coffee and it's done :-) Open the ones that need more adjustments...

Even if you only "do" minimal processing with RAWs, an advantage is that there is a small file (filename.XMP) that is (or can be) saved that has the RAW processing parameters. You can rename these and create a series of different processes for the same image.

It is hard to "go back" with a jpg....

Last edited by SpecialK; 11-23-2008 at 11:58 AM.
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, dslr, images, jpeg, k100d, photography, post
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x JPEG Compression Nightwings Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 08-02-2010 04:19 PM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh? Raptorman Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Love the K100d w/DA 55-200 in JPEG Michaelina2 Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 04-20-2008 05:33 PM
Isn't a JPEG enough for most folks? doggydude General Talk 16 01-23-2007 09:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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