Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-29-2009, 08:14 PM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 34
K10d shots w/o post processing

I was wondering how many K10d users produce, as a norm, shots that don't need post processing. Or, is it just a given that most everyone does post processing. I'm still jumping around trying different settings for the Sat/Sharp/Contr adjustments. I have seen posts by another photographer who rarely does any post processing and with excellent results but I think that was with a different system. I'd hope Pentax was capable of achieving this as well if I could find the correct set of adjustments. Maybe I'm asking too much.

Also, is there by chance, some not so obvious way to save more than one preset.

Thanks

09-29-2009, 08:23 PM   #2
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
For me (and I'm sure it is with others as well), out of camera results are fine but PP adds punch to the images that you just can't do in-camera. It's the icing on a great cake that makes the work outstanding.

Similar things were done in the darkroom in film days, but in the digital era there's just that much more versatility that PP becomes an essential part of a photographer's work.

On the K10D, you're limited to one set of presets with the USER mode, but with the other modes you have another set of presets you can set and revert back to.

Hope this helps.
09-29-2009, 09:07 PM   #3
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,075
Of course non post processed images can be of a high enough quality.

This summer I shot the K10d at it's lowest resolution--2 megapixels and at 1600 ISO (which is WAY outside my norms of 100-400) and ended up having several sports shots published in color in a variety of newspapers, including one image that ran in 7 different papers. Would these settings have worked for fine art shots? Not a chance in hell! Newsprint requirements are quite low regarding resolution and as such, anything you shoot would likely be publishable based more on content and subject matter rather than camera limitations. My settings were +2 sharpness, +1 contrast, +1 saturation shot in the natural color setting. (the images were shot through very high end FA* glass and were flash-filled which helped punch the color--white balance set for flash automatically through the function menu so when I shot before the flash was charged, the white balance was NOT set to flash, when the flash was charged and fired, the white balance was automatically set to match).

Note also that several years ago I had a shot from the Pentax EI200 2 megapixel point and shoot camera that sold to an ad agency and was used in two different corporate catalogs (national companies), was used in full page advertisements for both companies, was used in one company's in-house magazine, and was blown up to about 2 feet by 2 feet as the corner photo in a 2 foot by 8 foot banner that was distributed to 300 boat dealers across the U.S. and Canada. ANY digicam can make saleable or publishable images if you point it at the right subject!

Further note that I'm not a digital fan and do most of my fine art work on film with a Pentax 67II medium format camera and a Hasselblad XPanII medium format panorama camera. If I consider a subject to have fine art potential or think I might EVER want to print it, I shoot film not digital. For me, digital is my "grab shot" medium and my "submission to newspapers and magazines" format. Oh, I tend to use the K10d and FA* lenses for natural history images too--birds, beasts, blooms and bugs.

You don't need to spend time at the computer to "fix" digital images if you carefully plan what you really want to shoot. My background with film has trained me to get it right in camera. I generally edit out--read "throw away"--images that require post processing. If I miss the shot, I miss the shot...if I get it right then hooray, I may submit it somewhere. Sure makes editing easier. I'll commonly discard 90% or more of my digital images, only keeping those that may be marketable and are noticeably better than the rest of the stuff I shot of that particular subject.

Have fun with your camera, it's more than capable of doing the work you want it to do!
09-30-2009, 06:04 AM   #4
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 34
Original Poster
Thanks Ash and Ron. Ron I appreciate the extensive piont of view you provided. It makes a lot of sense.

09-30-2009, 08:03 AM   #5
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,007
I really don't like to spend a lot of time in PP so I try to get most of my shots right. Often in tricky light I will bracket to get the best possible exposure and delete the rest. My settings are the same as Ron just mentioned and gets mostly good results. Sometimes I have to add a little extra sharpening depending on which lens I used and maybe crop a little. I think our digital cameras make us a little lazy in some respects as often I will pick my camera up and just shoot away knowing I can quickly and easily do some PP to correct things. For some stuff, like with a long lens that isn't quite long enough, I know I'm going to be cropping and spending some time in PP from the get go such as when I'm trying to get shots of the herons on our local lakes. If everything is right with the exposure and settings, it is a few seconds in a simple program like Picasa to crop and sharpen a little and it's done in less time than it took to drive to the store and drop of a roll of film to be developed.
09-30-2009, 08:21 AM   #6
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
Thanks for the comments Ron.

I'm a person that likes to take shots, not modify them on the computer. I've found that I can do fine for 99% of my shots with jpegs and contrast,saturation & sharpness at +1. I might tweak a bit here and there but for most of the shots I do I'm happy to work with what comes out of the camera. I've been told that I'm a fool for not using raw all the time. One of my friends is a great photographer selling photos in the DC area. He never shoots raw, and uses a P&S for some of his photos that he sells.
09-30-2009, 08:22 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
I shoot, and have always shot mostly jpeg (i.e. 99.99%) and RAW only occasionally.

For me, my intent when I take a shot is to use it without any PP.

Mostly my PP is croping the shot, but occasionally changing contrast, or WB and a little sharpening or noise removal depending on final use, but overall I do very little.

This discussion has been around a lot, but mostly it has been a discussion about JPEG or RAW and not about the question of to PP or not PP.

WHen I explained that my shooting methodology includes making contrast, WB, sharpness, and satruation changes to my JPEG settings prior to shooting and based upon lighting conditions at the time, someone commented back I was "pre-post processing"
09-30-2009, 08:51 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Nowhere Matt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nowhere Land
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,312
QuoteOriginally posted by FishrOfGrizz Quote
I was wondering how many K10d users produce, as a norm, shots that don't need post processing. Or, is it just a given that most everyone does post processing. I'm still jumping around trying different settings for the Sat/Sharp/Contr adjustments. I have seen posts by another photographer who rarely does any post processing and with excellent results but I think that was with a different system. I'd hope Pentax was capable of achieving this as well if I could find the correct set of adjustments. Maybe I'm asking too much.

Also, is there by chance, some not so obvious way to save more than one preset.

Thanks
I think much of it is in the technique and personal preferences. Your lighting, your camera settings, your body response all can affect your final image quality even before you choose or do not choose to let software enhance the image.
You say you are playing with finding satisfying sharpness, contrast and saturation in camera and hope to achieve greater results without running the images through software. Perhaps you do not enjoy the efforts of post processing.
I do not mean to sound skeptical but perhaps some adjustments of how the camera is used rather than how the image is processed should be considered.
I know what you mean about times when you wish the image you had taken was sharp enough to kill but sometimes a great compostion is still very rewarding however the image quality is rated.

09-30-2009, 09:14 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Te most important factors in getting a good shot straight out of the camera are good composition (including good lighting) and good exposure. Take care of those two things and it won't matter much what JPEG settings you use, or if you shoot RAW, or how much PP you do. Said another way, the difference between a photographer who gets great shots out of the camera and one who doesn't is not a difference in their cameras, lenses, or settings - it's a difference in their command of composition, lighting, and exposure.
09-30-2009, 09:29 AM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Salem, MA
Posts: 145
Mine is k20d, but I can nevertheless relate.

I shoot RAW. End of the day I check if any needs exposure or WB adjustment -- usually only a handful. All those that don't need any PP get batch-converted to JPEG by the camera -- you can select and process 100 pics at a time. Trying to batch-convert 100+ RAW files generally causes PPL to crash on my laptop, sometime the laptop itself crashes. However, in-camera batch-conversion can drain the battery down quickly. May be I should be getting the AC power-supply/adapter.

My conversion settings are "natural," with fine-sharpness increased to 0, sometime contrast up to +1.
09-30-2009, 09:40 AM   #11
Site Supporter
Ahab's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oracle, Az
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 739
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I shoot, and have always shot mostly jpeg (i.e. 99.99%) and RAW only occasionally.

For me, my intent when I take a shot is to use it without any PP.

Mostly my PP is croping the shot, but occasionally changing contrast, or WB and a little sharpening or noise removal depending on final use, but overall I do very little.

This discussion has been around a lot, but mostly it has been a discussion about JPEG or RAW and not about the question of to PP or not PP.

WHen I explained that my shooting methodology includes making contrast, WB, sharpness, and satruation changes to my JPEG settings prior to shooting and based upon lighting conditions at the time, someone commented back I was "pre-post processing"
I have the same opinions as Lowell and prefer to keep PP for enhancing product images.
09-30-2009, 11:08 AM   #12
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,075
Glad my comments have helped some to feel more comfortable shooting JPEG's without post processing, but don't misunderstand me...I know full-well that shooting RAW and doing at least a bit of pp is a better way to get the best out of what you have shot. But how often do you really need an image to be the best it can possibly be? To me, the best a digital image can be is "sold" so if it is marketable that's good enough (that's not my attitude regarding fine art prints however where I err the other way--Cibachrome prints, aluminum plated mounting etc.). In regards to JPEG's... I do crop at times, maybe a bit of exposure correction or even--horror of horrors--bump saturation or contrast or even sharpen an image for submission to a magazine. But USUALLY I don't, especially if the image is for cruddy newprint use or low res. internet stuff (virtually everything I've ever posted on this forum has been unretouched. I just don't consider internet posts to be important enough to spend even one minute on tinkering with the image).

My shooting buddy has completely sworn off film and is "practicing" with Raw images in Lightroom 2. I'm encouraging him and even lending him my Lightroom books etc. so he can figure it all out for me! Note that he is using no presets at all and even before he does any processing, he's satisfied with the images as Lightroom converts them. I showed him Mithrandir's presets posts in the software forum etc. but he has yet to feel that he needs to use them. Just dumps his raw images into the software and likes what he is seeing on his calibrated moniter, and has liked the ones he's had printed at a high end digital print shop. My Lightroom 2 experience is primarily limited to playing with scans that I've heavily preprocessed in the scanning software--bumping saturation, color correction, flattening of the exposure etc. I still print analog--Cibacrome/Ilfochrome, but scans that I consider fine art pieces suitable for submission to fine art publications do get plenty of both pre and post processing.

And I think it was Mark who commented about compositional and exposure skills to reduce the need for post processing...well, it's hard for me to cop to being particularly skilled (though 2 decades of shooting picky transparency film has honed my exposure skills)...maybe it's just that I shoot a lot of images if there's any chance that something good will come of it. Playing the odds you could call it...

Back to the original post...family snapshot type stuff with kids, pets, vacations, holidays, partys etc.? Your grandpa didn't post process and your mom used photomat and your family albums are just as great as mine--they're awesome without any tinkering at all--even the yellowed or wierd tint or old Polaroid ones! That's because family photos typically aren't analyzed for photo perfection. What makes them great is the family in the photo! So save your post processing for your really good stuff. The day to day images can usually stand on their own merits without extra processing time or effort...

BTW a big YES for the 110V adapter for the digicam...I even have one for each of my point and shoots, for the K100d, for the K10d. I don't even want most of my images to touch the hard drive of any of my computers so I do the rough edits--culling--in camera with the camera plugged into the wall. Can a camera lcd screen suffice for editing--nope not even close. But it works great to discard about 2/3rds of my shots before getting picky with the last third on a larger computer screen and cutting the original shot to less than 10%.

Last edited by Ron Boggs; 09-30-2009 at 11:15 AM.
09-30-2009, 11:16 AM   #13
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote

Back to the original post...family snapshot type stuff with kids, pets, vacations, holidays, partys etc.? Your grandpa didn't post process and your mom used photomat and your family albums are just as great as mine--they're awesome without any tinkering at all--even the yellowed or wierd tint or old Polaroid ones! That's because family photos typically aren't analyzed for photo perfection. What makes them great is the family in the photo! So save your post processing for your really good stuff. The day to day images can usually stand on their own merits without extra processing time or effort...
Bingo...

Most of my photos suck whether they are jpeg or raw, as shot or PP'd to the max.
09-30-2009, 11:31 AM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,075
Don't be so hard on yourself...as technical photography pieces they may suck, but because your family is in those pics THEY'RE GREAT! Enjoy them and don't worry about what the photoshop gods think...
09-30-2009, 11:38 AM   #15
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote
Don't be so hard on yourself...as technical photography pieces they may suck, but because your family is in those pics THEY'RE GREAT! Enjoy them and don't worry about what the photoshop gods think...
I'm not being hard on myself, just joking a bit. I can enjoy my bike ride without being Lance and I can enjoy my photography without being Steiglitz I'm happiest sitting on my deck with my camera, drinking a beer with my wife and waiting for a hummingbird to arrive. Not setting up the perfect shot. I like hobbies with a little skill, a little creativity and some gear to play with.
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!
adjustments, camera, dslr, k10d, photography, post, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens Correction: 15mm DA Limited (in-camera Pentax Kx processing or post-processing?) ADHWJC Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 11-29-2010 08:11 PM
processing without cropping my shots Falld5 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 4 07-23-2009 09:28 AM
Post processing madisonphotogrl Photographic Technique 5 12-19-2008 12:48 PM
Post Processing paolojackson Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 9 08-11-2008 05:17 PM
DA 55-300 Sample Shots (x7), no post processing cputeq Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 07-04-2008 01:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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