Hi! Finally, I managed to extract the most necessary bit of information from you, Godfrey! I'll get to that in due course.
> My large "-half" size renderings are only 1000 pixels on the vertical > dimension at best. That is insufficient to image at the quality I > desire for A3 size prints. And prints are a different media than a > monitor screen ... while this size images nicely on the Apple Cinema > Display 23" and I can see the tonal qualities rendered very nearly > identical to what comes out of the printer, there is still a > substantial difference in the perceptual resolution and imaging > quality. I agree, but this is the best I have so far. > I think its simply calibrated better for the class of users that > Pentax expected to be interested in it, and that user group is more > inclined to use RAW and higher-end fine tuning of JPEGs destined for > post processing rather than prints direct from the capture. Could be. So you did not do any calibration of your software - you just fired away the ACR to convert the DNG files and were done, right? > With the K10D, you can set an exposure auto-bracket for 3 or 5 steps, > select the order of the sequence, and the step size between > exposures. In addition, the EV scale on the top mounted LCD indicates > the range and steps as well as displays the bias shift when you use > the EV compensation control in addition to the autobracket. What > this means is that, if I know that the meter would normally want to > expose at EV' and what I want as a bracket range is EV'-.3, EV', > EV'+.3, EV'+.7 and EV'+1.0, I can set my steps to 5, step size to > .3EV, and bias the center point with +.3EV compensation to get the > exact range I want. The display also shows which exposure is next if > you happen to let go of the shutter release before the sequence > finishes. I just checked. The *istD works *exactly* the same way. I am not sure it allows 5 bracket shots, but that's not the point. The rest is exactly like you described. Could be you slightly miscalculated when you chose DS over D in the past ;-). >> Can you please elaborate further about the "improvement over the >> DS" part? > > - more pixel resolution > - more dynamic range ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Har! Now, kind sir, will you please tell me what kind of improvement in dynamic range you observe so far? > - more bias on resolution rather than smoothing - more controls for > image processing finesse in-camera Well, it is simply more modern camera with more powerful electronics and software. The Moore's law if I am not mistaken here just did apply. > I use RAW format capture as it gives me the dynamic range, tonal and > color control that I find essential to produce prints at the quality > level I desire. There's no completely automated way to do this, imo. > And, just as important, personally I love working my photographs > into what my eye intended. Once upon a time I did this in the > darkroom and enjoyed it immensely. Now I can do it sans chemical > stink and hit-or- miss trial and error, with its attendant waste and > expense. I don't mind doing the *necessary* job so that from RAW capture I arrive to the photograph I'd like to obtain or that I pre-visioned when I tripped the shutter. The latter is just starting to happen to me, so that I will try to be careful with words here. Now, if I take a series of shots (with virtually no delay between them) by *istD for example, or if I shoot indoors under absolutely constant lighting conditions, the auto-WB will not produce same WB. Yes, I could use manual WB, etc, but anyway - in processing I have to compensate for WB errors. The way ACR comes up with exposure, brightness, shades, contrast settings sometimes amuses me in such a way that nowadays I rarely leave anything in auto-setting. I have to fine tune all of them. It seems however, that at least partially it comes from inconsistent WB setting in the camera so as ACR would try to compensate in some way thereby going astray even further. > I can't answer to how this influences your desire to 'minimize this > stage as much as possible'. If you want to capture in RAW format, > then it is up to you to find the balance that nets the advantages it > can offer and balance that against how you want to spend your time. If, like you seem to say, I could rely on consistent WB and exposure metering it would seem that given camera and I did the right job during the shot, the fine tuning will become less extensive if not obsolete all together. That would be very important to me. Do I make sense to you, Godfrey? > At least with the K10D's new control capabilities on color, > bracketing and exposure, you could do a lot more of your work in- > camera and walk away with JPEG files that print at a very high > quality level, depending upon your subject matter and your desired > degree of quality in a print. I am not sure yet if I would want to do RAW-JPEG processing in camera. But at least I want its automatics to be more reliable, or for lack of better word - more consistent. Cheers. Boris P.S. Let it be clear that I am not trying to bash my *istD in any way. It is fine camera. Could be even that the way I use it is not exactly right and should I learn better technique some of my problems would resolve. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
