On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> 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?
My workflow is to open all the DNG files into Bridge, open one that is typical with an average scene dynamic in Camera Raw, set the processing parameters until the preview looks about right, and save that as a default. I then pick groups of similar looking files and open them, make the larger adjustments that apply to the whole group as a unit until I've got most things roughed in to where I can decide what exposures I want to work on. Then I walk them them and do a first pass grading, work on smaller groups of exposures until I have them to a near-finish state. Make another grading pass to elect whatever number in a group I want to do finish quality work on, and set up the final parameters for that group one at a time. Once I'm at this point, I batch-convert all of them to PSD files for further processing. >> With the K10D, you can set an exposure auto-bracket ... > 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 ;-). Interesting ... I'd have to look at one. But no matter, I'm happy to see this is featured on the K10D. No, I didn't pick the wrong camera. The D was already an old model when I bought the DS. It is slow and I preferred the SD cards over the CF cards. It was also twice the price. This kind of feature is a happy convenience that I'm glad to make use of, but it isn't a deal breaker to me. >>> 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? I have not done quantified evaluations, Boris, that I can quote numbers to you. I have taken test exposures in similar lighting that demonstrate to me quite clearly that I get more shadow and highlight detail to work with at identical exposure settings with the identical lens on the K10D vs the *ist DS. The differences are on the order of nuances, but when the base your comparing against is quite good to begin with, nuances count for a lot. When and if I do formal testing, I will probably put it on a web page for everyone to see and comment on, including the test methodology (as I usually do). > 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. Yes. So? It's the significant incremental advantages I was hoping for. What else is important? > 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. It sounds like you are on the threshold of new understandings about photography. Keep going! :-) > 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. I almost never move the DS from anything but AWB, I always adjust EV compensation based on what I know to be the behavior of the metering system. I expect this to be true with the K10D as well as being true with all the other cameras I've used. I listed my RAW processing workflow above. What is necessary is understanding the behavior of a given camera, the behavior of Camera Raw, and how to make the RAW conversion adjustments correctly and in what sequence to get the results you want. You can't say what that is until you really know what you want, which it sounds like you're just beginning to get to. > 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. All cameras have their foibles, and many times what we see as foibles are actually responses to the environment. For instance, shooting the performance tests I did the other day, I noticed that the white balance and exposure shifted frame by frame and wondered about the consistency of the metering system or aperture actuation mechanism. Then I realized that the light source was flourescent tubes ... the variation was due to the AC cycling of the tubes' light in a beat frequency against the camera's metering and white balance control system. > 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? The per-frame fine tuning will always be necessary for best results, depending upon how discriminating you are about image quality. How much fine tuning will be lessened by the consistency of the camera's systems, your understanding of their behaviors and your skill in using them. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
