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 Oct 18, 2007, 7:54 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

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)


Attached Images
 
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 18, 2007, 7:56 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

2) Raw conversion @ Pentax Photo Laboratory 100% crop
Attached Images
 
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 7:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

3) on board Raw to Jpeg conversion 100% crop
Attached Images
 
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 8:00 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

4) Shot straight in Jpeg same settings in Manual mode. 100% crop
Attached Images
 
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 9:01 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

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.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 7:23 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

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
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 8:08 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.

bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 11:54 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

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.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 3:41 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
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!
bahadir 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 7:39 PM.