Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2007, 12:10 AM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 60
Default

Scott - no problem, you didn't hijack, the discussions are interesting.

Mtngal - I haven't tried bright much yet because I cannot - no matter what I do with WB - get rid of the yellow cast indoors, and bright just makes it worse! Today I set the WB on the graph as far away from yellow as it could go, lower left corner, and my daughter still has yellow skin. Part of the reason we ponied up the extra $ for K10 instead of K100 was the white balance was supposedly better. I plan on digging into the manual again tonight, to see if I can find something else to try.

Thanks everyone for your advice and comments. I will just go and take multiple pic's of a static object and record the settings for each, then see what looks best I guess. So far I have gotten very few sharp shots. My sons Fujii s5200 is producing better, so I guess I just need to be patient, keep reading the manual, and keep trying.

One more question for jpeg shooters - do you find that you use diff settings indoors than out (eg bright/natural, sat, contrast, sharpness) or just keep general settings once you find what you like?

Still love my cam, just a little frustrated.

Peggy


pmanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2007, 1:12 AM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 90
Default

snostorm wrote:
Quote:
My intention was not to argue the point that RAW retains all the information, or that it is theoretically better to use a lossless method of saving an image, or that saving an edited jpg loses more of the original information, or that lost information is lost forever. These points are not refutable. . . but is any of this relevant in a real world practical sense for a photographic hobbyist ?
Certainly. I for one am a rank amateur when it comes to photography. I certainly don't get paid for it... or at least I can't make a living from it... For the publications I might submit to, I am more likely to get an image published if I have an original uncompressed image I can send to the publisher than If all I have available is a JPEG (even if it is a JPEG right from the camera).

Quote:
Sorry about the rant -- I knew that I probably shouldn't have posted to this thread. . .
I'm just a little too opinionated for some.
Don't worry about it too much. We all have opinions, and in this country anyway, we're free to express them.

The opinion I gave here was a profesional opinion, as a Computer Scientist, and because it is based on proven mathematics, I can't waiver from it. I'm not making any judgement based on esthetics of the resulting image, only quantitative analysis of the resulting image.

In the big scheme of things, what matters more than anything you do in post processing is still what was important when shooting film: how well you compose the shots, and how well exposed is each one... This of course brings subjective thoughts of quality back into all this, which always leads me back to one of my all time favorite philisophical thoughts:

Quote:
Quality is a Characteristic of thought and statement that is recognized by a nonthinking process. Because definitions are a product of rigid formal thinking, quality cannot be defined.
- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

In other words, from a philisophical perspective, I largely agree with you, but, from a profesional perspective I cannot agree with you. In this case, my profesional opinion outweights any philisophical thoughts on the subject, so I must therefore recommend shooting in a mode that results in a RAW image all the time. On the K10D, this includes shooting in the RAW+JPEG mode. If I need a JPEG out of the camera for some reason, this is the mode I choose to use.

Paul
pbender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2007, 2:18 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Peggy and Paul,

Peggy -- Try manual WB for indoor shots -- If you look at the specs for AWB, you'll see that it's not meant to even come close to balancing Tungsten light, and if you use those twisty flourescent energy savers, it's even worse.

One of the problems with making AWB include Tungsten is that it would also correct for the warm glow of the "Golden Hour" when the sun is low in the sky -- I personally like the choice that Pentax made in this regard, despite what some reviewers say.

Also, if you find that Manual WB gives you a little bit too much coolness to the tone (I do sometimes), go to your local paint store and snatch a variety of very light pastel bluish and cyan chips and try experimenting with them to set MWB to give a warmer tone without having to try to fine tune in the camera. Obviously, you can use other colors to give different effects, buit you have to remember to use complementary colors (and you might get some ideas to redecorate at the same time:-)).

Paul -- Thanks for a very reasonable response. I now know very well where you're coming from and am glad that we aren't really in serious conflict (not that it matters in the big scheme of things). Everybody's got to go with what they feel fits for them.

. . . ah "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" . . . read it a very long time ago and was amazed at the volume of reason contained in such a small book with such a funny name.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2007, 8:07 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
dan-mx-ds2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 112
Default

The great thing about our DSLRs is they have these little buttons and menu settings so we can all try this stuff for ourselves!

I have about the same philosophy as Scott, Tom, and Tom on this, and thanks, Scott, for saying it so eloquently. I shoot mostly JPG with my DS2, and am very happy with the results. I've done side-by-side testing with various subjects, and with 100% pixel-peeping I can see that my RAW images contain very slightly more detail, but not enough to justify the extra card space, storage space, and post-processing effort. I do shoot RAW for my serious artistic efforts, primarily so I have more freedom to adjust exposure/color/contrast, not because of any concern over detail and sharpness.

I post process from my original JPG file, keep it in PSD until done, and save into JPG only once. No problems with image quality.

I like using Natural Image Tone, Saturation 0, Contrast -1, and Sharpness +1. I leave it there for everything...my only adjustments for different situations are ISO and WB. Even with Sharpness at +1, I often sharpen the files at Threshold 0.3 and Amount 150-300%.

I just got back from a two-week vacation, with three 512MB cards and a 128 MB card. I shot 490 photos, of which 23 were RAW and the rest JPG. I won't keep all of them, and many were family snapshots, but I did get some good "artistic" JPGs. This one is the Washington National Cathedral in the glow of the setting sun.

God bless,

Dan
Attached Images
 
dan-mx-ds2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 3:41 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Great shot, I really like this one.

Having re-read this thread, I feel I might be tempted to try the jpg route. However, I do have some reservations, maily concerning the white balance. When shooting RAW, I never touch it, it is always on AWB. If I switch to jpg, will I need to start messing with this?

For example, when at the zoo, I shoot outside and inside. Do I keep switching the WB or can I leave it alone and sort it out on the PC later?


I suppose I am one of those who feel RAW is best, but I am willing to accept that I do not know everything, and not having to PP 500 shots every session would be a godsend. The only time I shot jpg I left the WB on auto and the Photos turned out fine.

Guess what I am saying is, please convince me that I can shoot jpg just as easily as RAW (I am a lazy photographer!! LOL).



Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 4:01 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
not having to PP 500 shots every session would be a godsend.

No offence, Darren (and others), but what the **** do you do with the 500 shots after PPing them?

Not trying to be offensive, I just want to know how you (all of you who batch convert or shoot jpg in order to avoid batch converting) reason about this. Maybe it's my darkroom background, when one fine BW copy took at least an hour to complete. And that was about as many you made from one session.:-)

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 4:33 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 60
Default

Kjell

Thats what todays humongous hard drives are for! Storing all those digital pics that aren't good enough to print, and I'm too lazy to sort through and delete ( and maybe, just maybe five years from now, I might actually want to look at it).

Peggy
pmanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 4:51 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

My background is also darkroom based. However, I used to go to the zoo and shoot 5 or 6 rolls of film (6 x 36 = 216). Process the film, print a contact print and decide which 2 or 3 from each roll I wanted to print 10 x 8 or 7 x 5. The rest used to be filed in ever increasing binders, unprinted.

Now I can do the same, but delete the ones I don't like and archive them onto DVD. After shooting around 250 (average for the zoo trips) I keep around 100-150 and print 10 to 20 of them. Some are filed away, most end up on the wall. The pictures get changed on the walls from time to time, I have 18 A4 prints, 8 10x8 prints and 18 6x4 prints on the walls in the living room, hallway and landing, plus an A3 in the bedroom.


Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2007, 12:48 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Do you delete all the RAWs after converting?

I save the RAWs (after deleting all that I realise will never end up on any wall or in any album) and convert the ones I want to use for some purpose, when that pupose occurs.

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2007, 1:07 AM   #30
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 90
Default

bilybianca wrote:
Quote:
Do you delete all the RAWs after converting?

I save the RAWs (after deleting all that I realise will never end up on any wall or in any album) and convert the ones I want to use for some purpose, when that pupose occurs.
I personally save all the RAW images. CDs and DVDs are a great deal of help in this respect.

Of course my use for most of the images I take is different than many others. I use the images as inspiration for model building projects, and for a check of details durring model construction.

If I print the images out, they usually are printed on plain paper... I don't even own a photo printer.

Paul
pbender is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:02 AM.