on board vs. computer

[bahadir]

I know the software on computer leaves you a great scope determining the output. So comparing themafter the desired settingsis out of question!

Before buying the camera I wondered if there would be any difference betweenusing on board feature or on computer when converted with default settings. Now, I can see no difference. Even shooting straight JPEG looks the same! However accordingsome reviewsyou cannot see the real clarity and colours of the camera unless you shoot in raw!

All the in camera prameters are set to 'zero' except the image tone set to bright.

Shot withSigma 17-70 @ 1/200 ; f/8; ISO 100

1)The whole pic (raw conversion at PPL)

[bahadir]

2) Raw conversion @ Pentax Photo Laboratory 100% crop

[bahadir]

3) on board Raw to Jpeg conversion 100% crop

[bahadir]

4) Shot straight in Jpeg same settings in Manual mode. 100% crop

[mtngal]

I'm going to have to look at these on my computer at home. There looks to be some differences in tonal range, which gives the appearance of one having more detail, but the difference on this monitor is very small. I'd be interested to see what others who are using better calibrated monitors think. It does appear that the three are very close, but that's rather what I would have expected. I don't use PPL very often, but when I have, it's always looked closer to what a jpg would look like - I think that's how it was designed. You can convert a batch and be reasonably assured that they will look much like the jpg versions, while still maintaining quite a bit of latitude to change things.

[robar]

the last one is definately the loser. that's obvious.
at this size the other 2 seem close but you will never get something you can compare completely with the full size image.. there's just too much degradation of the image when saved as a jpeg to a point you can post here.

roy

[bahadir]

mtngal wrote:

I'm going to have to look at these on my computer at home. There looks to be some differences in tonal range, which gives the appearance of one having more detail, but the difference on this monitor is very small. I'd be interested to see what others who are using better calibrated monitors think. It does appear that the three are very close, but that's rather what I would have expected. I don't use PPL very often, but when I have, it's always looked closer to what a jpg would look like - I think that's how it was designed. You can convert a batch and be reasonably assured that they will look much like the jpg versions, while still maintaining quite a bit of latitude to change things.

Thank you for your kind response!Actually, as I stated before,I prefer PPL for its bright colours which I have to toil to acquire at Photo shop! Otherwise, the PS looks a tad more detailed even with default settings.As you asomentioned above, converting a batch is a breeze at PPL! Anyway, I'll keep on shooting RAW always to be able to dopost processingwithout much loss in IQ when I need to. Looking forward tohearing your assessment on your home computer!

.................................................. ....................

Robar wrote:

the last one is definately the loser. that's obvious.
at this size the other 2 seem close but you will never get something you can compare completely with the full size image.. there's just too much degradation of the image when saved as a jpeg to a point you can post here.

Thank you Roy!

I've found that even the place of the image on the monitor changes the verdict in such comparisons! Thus I need keen and experinced eyes such as yours : ) Really, when inspected closely, the last one appears to be the loser!Btw, the 100% crops of original onesin my hard disk doesn't really seemdiffferent than the 100% crops I see here.

[mtngal]

Interesting to look at them at home - the first two look closer to each other than on the monitor at work. There is a slight tonal difference, but I don't see a difference as far as sharpness. The third one definitely isn't as good - definitely a case for shooting raw.

Thanks for posting these - I had forgotten that the K10 will do raw to jpg conversions in-camera.

[bahadir]

mtngal wrote:

Interesting to look at them at home - the first two look closer to each other than on the monitor at work. There is a slight tonal difference, but I don't see a difference as far as sharpness. The third one definitely isn't as good - definitely a case for shooting raw.

Thanks for posting these - I had forgotten that the K10 will do raw to jpg conversions in-camera.

Thanks forthe second look as you promised : )

Trying many in-camera conversions, I'm convinced thatit is a goodoptionfor downloading pics onto another computer or even a printer (though I heard that now there are ink jet printersdirectlyprinting from raw files!) when you're away from your computer. Still, a batch process, that is, selecting all the DNG files on on the SD card to be converted, on a computer is much easier!