|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-31-2016, 12:25 AM
|
| |
PNG better for digitally generated pictures where it compress the best (lossless I think). Jpeg is best for photos/complex images and it lossy format is very efficiant. The problem is that it doesn't come with the dynamic range with need mostly.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-30-2016, 02:21 AM
|
| |
This greatly depend of how much you shoot and more important what you keep.
I don't see point as an amateur to keep 20-50K pictures a year. To me by taking time to keep only the best and process them decently (at least good framing, perspective/horizon correction) you are much more likely to want to look at the picture you took a few years back. And your friend/familly are far less likely to want to commit murder if you ask them for a viewing session.
If you keep only 5000 pictures a year, and that already a lot if they are all great, With a K3 you need 12 years to fill a 2TB drive... And if you know you'll not reprocess the raw anyway, you can simply keep only the JPEG for the long run meaning that 2TB would last you a lifetime.
2TB HDD one for storage, the other for backup is maybe 250$? Maybe less. That doesn't look that bad.
Myself I am well under 5000 great pictures a year. If there 5 great photo of the same thing, I'll keep 1 or 2. Not 5. And if there 10 more soso pictures I'll delete all of them so I have only the 1-2 great picture for that moment/scene/subject.
If you are a pro you may shoot much more, but again for your own archives I don't think need more than 5000 a year. Your best. Once you have given your work to your clients there no reason to keep all the picture for a long time if it is not part of service you sell. Certainly if you keep then for a lifetime or only 10 years, that should be paid somewhere.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-26-2016, 11:41 AM
|
| |
For K3 at least I found none of this to be an issue. i think bust rate is the same for RAW and JPEG, only the buffer fill faster. But 24 images is large enough at least for me. And as long as buffer not full, I don't care of the write time...
2X 128GB SD card of decent brand/speed is less than 100€ and give you an autonomy of about 8000 Raws. Not that bad. I shoot that in 6 months.
The only issue I have is I need to convert the RAW before I can send them to friend or flickr... but even for viewer there very fast free viewers available that also support raws.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-13-2016, 04:24 AM
|
| |
You can't get 16bit from 8 that 100% sure. You'd get still a bit of benefit as intermediate computation would not reduce even more quality.
But the latest JPEG standard (JPEG 2000) that is already quite old allow for 16 and 32 bit floating point so significantly higher quality than what you have in current raw format (12-16 bit integer values). But I get it that it is not really used. If anyway everybody still to the old 8 bit implementation your are stuck.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-09-2016, 01:25 PM
|
| |
Well this is also the main problem of JPEG. There the compression artefacts, but honestly with a high quality setting you never see it. But while JPEG 2000 support any bit deph it is not much used.
Even if you use GIMP 16 bit version when it is ready, if the source image is 8 bit, like all jpegs produced by cameras, the problem is still here. Honestly, I don't know why there isn't an option to produce 16 bit jpegs in camera?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-09-2016, 01:16 PM
|
| |
Well this is also the main problem of JPEG. There the compression artefacts, but honestly with a high quality setting you never see it. But while JPEG 2000 support any bit deph it is not much used.
Even if you use GIMP 16 bit version when it is ready, if the source image is 8 bit, like all jpegs produced by cameras, the problem is still here.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-09-2016, 09:01 AM
|
| |
No offence but I find GIMP not the best for that kind of task. GIMP kind of photoshop competitor and while it nice if mastered for very advanced post processing, I also think it make simple things more complex.
Software like Lightroom or DxO concentrate on photography only. Sure they are optimized for raws but they are first optimized to manage photos in batch, play with perspective, horizon, exposure, contrast, shadow recovery as well as white balance and manipulating colors profiles. It make it far easier to work with.
The raw and jpeg is the same thing, with only raw giving you more margin in corners cases but the tooling specialized for photo editing get the best out of both help a lot.
Moving a few sliders I can get very different rendering that match my mood. After some practice, you can save your prefered rendering and reuse them when similar situation arise.
The post processing is sure to correct issues, but also to customize your photo so they look what you want them too.
A few different renderings... This isn't about if they are inherently supperior but more if they better match I want to express or get.
IMGP0130 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
IMGP4667 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
IMGP1427 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
IMGP2793 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
IMGP1473_4_5_tonemapped by Nicolas, sur Flickr
IMGP1918 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
IMGP5439 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
Strawberries, coconuts and other fruits. by Nicolas, sur Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-08-2016, 01:26 PM
|
| |
My father has the same issue. It is quite anoying to not have dedicated all time control to select the AF point. Even fully disably the arrow would not work because I want to select the braketing/burst mode behavior at time or the flash settings.
While overall I am quite satisfied with my K3 ergonomics, I am currious of what the joystick some camera have would permit...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-08-2016, 11:33 AM
|
| |
It is a worflow thing. Depending of your workflow, you may prefer working with one or the other or a mix.
For me and I speak for my workflow, not saying it is universal I work frow RAWs only.
Here is my workflow:
For all I said, basically the picture being taken as RAW or Jpeg is irrelevant to the process. All pictures get the same workflow anyway. But I know that I have more information to work with RAW. I can usually get bette high iso, tweak the white balence or overall rendering more. I can get back the burned highlights or push the shadows.
If I just want the jpeg without thinking I can directly export all of them without doing anything or applying one the profile I created in the past.
To me it is more work, more complication to think RAW or JPEG this time or even to compare RAWs and JPEGs to see if one is better. I just take one format, always raw and I am done with it.
Furthermore, the K3 ergonimics make it quite easy to mess up the JPEG settings when trying to move the selected AF point. It can happen I end up with some weird settings due to that. In raw I don't care as it is not even taken into account.
But that just me. People will do JPEG only or mix for their own reasons. For me RAW only is just much simpler. I don't have to think about it and I am done.
|
