K10D JPEGs-I was pleasantly surprised!

OregonJim · 03-30-2009, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Rmpjr7

I have to say that I was very impressed with the JPEG photos (unprocessed-right out of the camera) and I'm quite sure that my RAW photos(after processing), to my eye anyway were not noticeably better.

That might be true today, but what about the Photoshop/Lightroom of 2, 3, or 5 years from now? I'm sure the processing algorithms will be much more advanced than they are now. That's why I shoot RAW - to give the PP of the future as much data as I can to work with...

lesmore49 · 03-30-2009, 06:31 PM

I shoot my K10D on maximum JPEGS and I have to say that I'm very pleased with the results. I never do any post processing for a couple of reasons...first I don't know how, secondly I've never learned as the pictures don't seem to need it.

Jonson PL · 03-31-2009, 04:08 AM

The first year I shot only JPEG, I’ve got many keepers from that. Now I shoot RAW, but do little post processing. Mostly just adjust white balance, when needed. (So primarily just use a RAW converter for my images).

RAW is just an extra safety when I need it. Else JPEG could do for me. (I don’t use RAW + JPEG).

Besides I can’t afford those advanced programs where you can do special editing to only part of the image. In PP, it is mostly all or nothing for me.

If there is something with a particular image, then I go by a friend of mine, who knows a lot about Photoshop. He does a bunch of stuff, which I can't follow, but he can even improve JPEG files.

But generally regarding the JPEG K10 discussion, it all goes to show how much anxiety and how things are blown up in forums, (particularly DPr). This is a problem for us newcomers, as we don’t know what is real, and what is just a storm in a glass of water.

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

For example, in doing your taxe, you can't simply round all your entries off to the nearest 100 and expect your final answer to out correct to the nearest 100 as well.

I don’t use my camera for taxes

Originally posted by Robert S Donovan

The other advantages I have found from shooting RAW are higher IQ, better lens corrections, better quality high ISO noise, and much more leeway with exposure (+2 stops IMO). Typically I run the histogram right up to the limit and then dial in a bit of recovery in Lightroom to recover any blown-out highlight detail. I'm always amazed at how much detail is hiding in a RAW highlight that looks blown-out...

All of that being said, I have 10 years worth of wonderful JPEG images from a number of cameras. The JPEG output from my K10D was only rivaled by a Canon 5D I had an affair with for a few months. Now, I get similar quality from my K10D's JPEGs (processed in Lightroom) as I got from my JPEGs right out of my 5D. I'd call that a better value

Thanks for your input, good to hear

farfisa · 03-31-2009, 06:00 AM

I've been shooting RAW on my K10 and then my K20 until a recent vacation, when I only had 16GB worth of room and wanted to play it safe!

Very impressed with the JPEG output, and I haven't gone back yet. I did RAW+JPG a couple times and did notice blown highlights in the JPEGs, but the JPEG image was very pleasing.

Actually, I can now see the value of doing RAW+JPG--when I was just shooting RAW it seemed like a waste of space. The JPG conversion is very good in camera, so it saves a lot of work, but there are times when you wish you had that RAW file...

benjikan · 03-31-2009, 06:38 AM

I liken this debate to that of negative vs slide film. If you have the balls and know the latitude of the film used, you shoot slides. If you want to have the margin of safety one gets with negative film i.e. -3/+3 ev go with RAW. I used to always shoot slide film because I knew my Fujichrome 50 like the back of my hand. However being that digital has less of a dynamic range than film, I always shoot RAW.

dylansalt · 04-01-2009, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I liken this debate to that of negative vs slide film. If you have the balls and know the latitude of the film used, you shoot slides. If you want to have the margin of safety one gets with negative film i.e. -3/+3 ev go with RAW. I used to always shoot slide film because I knew my Fujichrome 50 like the back of my hand. However being that digital has less of a dynamic range than film, I always shoot RAW.

Back then - shooting with slide film was the only way if you wanted the ultimate in quality and was the only thing that mags accepted.

Having a well exposed slide and then printed out as a Cibachrome print was nirvana!

The main reason I chose Pentax over the "others" is that I can get an almost similar result - deep rich, sharp, punchy prints very comparable to Ciba Chrome.

Today the 20th century photography has unfortunately never shot with slide film.

Dylan

OregonJim · 04-01-2009, 08:54 AM

mmmmmm..... Cibachrome..... Wish I had a way-back machine!

OregonJim · 04-01-2009, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by dylansalt

Today the 20th century photography has unfortunately never shot with slide film.

Dylan

BTW, it's the 21st century.

dylansalt · 04-02-2009, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by OregonJim

BTW, it's the 21st century.

Damn - where does the time go

Typo error

Dylan

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pleasantly Surprised Kenko 2X dg PZ-AF	rkboid	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-05-2009 09:37 AM
Surprised!	SCguy	General Talk	2	01-27-2009 08:05 PM
why don't people like K10D JPEGs	Lowell Goudge	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	01-13-2009 02:26 PM
I was pleasantly surprised.......	Heinrich Lohmann	Post Your Photos!	30	06-15-2008 10:22 PM
Good quality JPEGs from K10D-try this	*isteve	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	04-18-2007 08:18 AM

03-30-2009, 06:26 PM	#16
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by Rmpjr7 I have to say that I was very impressed with the JPEG photos (unprocessed-right out of the camera) and I'm quite sure that my RAW photos(after processing), to my eye anyway were not noticeably better. That might be true today, but what about the Photoshop/Lightroom of 2, 3, or 5 years from now? I'm sure the processing algorithms will be much more advanced than they are now. That's why I shoot RAW - to give the PP of the future as much data as I can to work with...

03-30-2009, 06:31 PM	#17
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,342	I shoot my K10D on maximum JPEGS and I have to say that I'm very pleased with the results. I never do any post processing for a couple of reasons...first I don't know how, secondly I've never learned as the pictures don't seem to need it.

03-31-2009, 04:08 AM	#18
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	The first year I shot only JPEG, I’ve got many keepers from that. Now I shoot RAW, but do little post processing. Mostly just adjust white balance, when needed. (So primarily just use a RAW converter for my images). RAW is just an extra safety when I need it. Else JPEG could do for me. (I don’t use RAW + JPEG). Besides I can’t afford those advanced programs where you can do special editing to only part of the image. In PP, it is mostly all or nothing for me. If there is something with a particular image, then I go by a friend of mine, who knows a lot about Photoshop. He does a bunch of stuff, which I can't follow, but he can even improve JPEG files. But generally regarding the JPEG K10 discussion, it all goes to show how much anxiety and how things are blown up in forums, (particularly DPr). This is a problem for us newcomers, as we don’t know what is real, and what is just a storm in a glass of water. Originally posted by Marc Sabatella For example, in doing your taxe, you can't simply round all your entries off to the nearest 100 and expect your final answer to out correct to the nearest 100 as well. I don’t use my camera for taxes Originally posted by Robert S Donovan The other advantages I have found from shooting RAW are higher IQ, better lens corrections, better quality high ISO noise, and much more leeway with exposure (+2 stops IMO). Typically I run the histogram right up to the limit and then dial in a bit of recovery in Lightroom to recover any blown-out highlight detail. I'm always amazed at how much detail is hiding in a RAW highlight that looks blown-out... All of that being said, I have 10 years worth of wonderful JPEG images from a number of cameras. The JPEG output from my K10D was only rivaled by a Canon 5D I had an affair with for a few months. Now, I get similar quality from my K10D's JPEGs (processed in Lightroom) as I got from my JPEGs right out of my 5D. I'd call that a better value Thanks for your input, good to hear

03-31-2009, 06:00 AM	#19
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	I've been shooting RAW on my K10 and then my K20 until a recent vacation, when I only had 16GB worth of room and wanted to play it safe! Very impressed with the JPEG output, and I haven't gone back yet. I did RAW+JPG a couple times and did notice blown highlights in the JPEGs, but the JPEG image was very pleasing. Actually, I can now see the value of doing RAW+JPG--when I was just shooting RAW it seemed like a waste of space. The JPG conversion is very good in camera, so it saves a lot of work, but there are times when you wish you had that RAW file...

03-31-2009, 06:38 AM	#20
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	I liken this debate to that of negative vs slide film. If you have the balls and know the latitude of the film used, you shoot slides. If you want to have the margin of safety one gets with negative film i.e. -3/+3 ev go with RAW. I used to always shoot slide film because I knew my Fujichrome 50 like the back of my hand. However being that digital has less of a dynamic range than film, I always shoot RAW.

04-01-2009, 08:50 AM	#21
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	Originally posted by benjikan I liken this debate to that of negative vs slide film. If you have the balls and know the latitude of the film used, you shoot slides. If you want to have the margin of safety one gets with negative film i.e. -3/+3 ev go with RAW. I used to always shoot slide film because I knew my Fujichrome 50 like the back of my hand. However being that digital has less of a dynamic range than film, I always shoot RAW. Back then - shooting with slide film was the only way if you wanted the ultimate in quality and was the only thing that mags accepted. Having a well exposed slide and then printed out as a Cibachrome print was nirvana! The main reason I chose Pentax over the "others" is that I can get an almost similar result - deep rich, sharp, punchy prints very comparable to Ciba Chrome. Today the 20th century photography has unfortunately never shot with slide film. Dylan

04-01-2009, 08:54 AM	#22
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	mmmmmm..... Cibachrome..... Wish I had a way-back machine!

04-01-2009, 08:57 AM	#23
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by dylansalt Today the 20th century photography has unfortunately never shot with slide film. Dylan BTW, it's the 21st century.

04-02-2009, 02:10 PM	#24
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	Originally posted by OregonJim BTW, it's the 21st century. Damn - where does the time go Typo error Dylan