Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW

The reports you have been reading have been written by users that would
rather have Mickey Mouse cartoon like characters than what was really there
when the shutter was pressed, these people never take the time to learn how
to use these excellent cameras. Even at the end of Phils review he said that
if you do not like to PP then printing up to A3 is still excellent, just how
big are you printing? I have printed 12x18 from my DS and it is razor sharp
across the entire print.

Go over to DP Review and find the Pentax discussion forum or go to one of
the many dedicated Pentax forums like www.pentaxworld.com or
www.pentaxforums.com

Thousands and thousands of excellent photos taken with Pentax cameras and a
huge amount of excellent advice on how to get the best results from your
camera.

Cheers.

Pete

"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:46b2396b.6097664@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Over a year ago there were some posts on here about the top of the
> Pentax line then, I think it was the "iST" or something similar. It
> was stated that the 'in camera' software was rather poor in creating
> sharp .JPG files, but their RAW files could be converted to excellent
> .JPG files.
>
> Recently, I just bought the latest in the Pentax line, their K10D, and
> I'm finding the .JPG pics it produces are really no sharper than I've
> been getting for years from my various CoolPix cameras, the 995 to be
> specific. Then belatedly I read the dpreview.com summary of their
> tests on this K10D, and much to my dismay, they said essentially the
> same thing the story of a year ago said about the "iST" model. Also,
> dpreview said the software that Pentax furnishes for converting their
> RAW files did equally poorly. They recommended using something else,
> like Adobe Camera RAW to do the converting.
>
> This distresses me greatly, especially since the information was out
> there well over a year ago, and apparently Pentax has ignored these
> reports and just continued with the same poor quality software both
> in the camera and for the user to do the conversion. They've even
> issued 4 upgrades to their firmware for the K10D, and nothing there
> seems to address this issue.
>
> Anyone care to share their facts or opinions?
>
> Olin McDaniel
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

The K10D does detail sharpening not edge sharpening and for some reason
Pentax has their heads so far up their ass that they can't see and breath
well enough to offer a second sharpening adjustment for edge sharpening for
those that want that option. RAW files are great. JPGs... I have seen worse
and I have seen better.

They do sharpen well, if you want to have to sharpen all of your JPGs. If I
wanted that kind of post processing I would just use RAW... which is what I
do.

Somebody!
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

Somebody <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:

> The K10D does detail sharpening not edge sharpening and for some reason
> Pentax has their heads so far up their ass that they can't see and breath
> well enough to offer a second sharpening adjustment for edge sharpening
> for those that want that option. RAW files are great. JPGs... I have seen
> worse and I have seen better.
>
> They do sharpen well, if you want to have to sharpen all of your JPGs. If
> I wanted that kind of post processing I would just use RAW... which is
> what I do.

Actually, the secret to sharp images from a Pentax DSLR is to ditch the
kit lens. Things look mighty lovely through the FA 50/1.4 etc. Rarely do
I need to sharpen anything taken through the good glass.

--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

The K10d has the same sensor as the Nikon D200/80/40x/Sony Alpha.
I am not sure what your standard of quality is if you see images from an old
Nikon 995 as equivalent to a jpeg from the D10. The 995 is a noisy old thing
that is several generations obsolete.
In camera jpeg processing is adjustable but in the end is a silly way to use
a dSLR. Why lug that heavy camera and lenses and then purposely limit the
thing to P&S quality image creation? Jpeg processing throws away so much of
the sensor data that you bought the freaking camera to capture in the first
place.
For highest quality images you need to learn to use RAW. The Pentax software
is limited compared to programs like Elements or CS3 but is better than
shooting jpegs.
However to reap the benefits of raw images you do not have to spend hours
processing every picture. Try out the Pentax converter, Elements, Bibble
Lite and a few others and you may find that all you really need are a few
simple tweaks, often just levels, grey balance and saturation. Even if you
save as a jpeg you should get better results than relying on the camera's
programming.
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:57:07 +1000, "Pete D" <Doug DeleteThis @is.a.moron.com>
wrote:

>The reports you have been reading have been written by users that would
>rather have Mickey Mouse cartoon like characters than what was really there
>when the shutter was pressed, these people never take the time to learn how
>to use these excellent cameras. Even at the end of Phils review he said that
>if you do not like to PP then printing up to A3 is still excellent, just how
>big are you printing? I have printed 12x18 from my DS and it is razor sharp
>across the entire print.
>
>Go over to DP Review and find the Pentax discussion forum or go to one of
>the many dedicated Pentax forums like www.pentaxworld.com or
>www.pentaxforums.com

As stated in my original post, I did read Phil's review in DP Review,
and it was there that he made a strong point about the weakness in the
camera's internal conversion software. And then he pointed out the
software included on the CD, for installation on the users computer,
was no better. He was the one who suggested using Adobe Camera RAW
in its place. Don't get me wrong, I think other than this one
weakness, I'm going to really like this camera. It has many great
features, and I'm still learning them. But when a five year old, 3 mp
CoolPix can generate sharper images, and I can prove it, then I really

agree with Phil's review statements. I just feel like Pentax dropped
the ball with their software, and should include this fix in their
next Firmware update.

Olin
>
>Thousands and thousands of excellent photos taken with Pentax cameras and a
>huge amount of excellent advice on how to get the best results from your
>camera.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Pete
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:19:00 -0700, wkasimer <wkasimer.DeleteThis@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Aug 2, 4:22 pm, omcdaniel.a....DeleteThis@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel)
>wrote:
>
>> Anyone care to share their facts or opinions?
>
>If you wish to shoot JPEG's, increase the sharpness setting from the
>default.
>
>Bill (who loves his K10D)
>
Thanks, I'll give that a try. Normally I don't override the default
camera's settings in things like that. As stated originally, I'm
criticising because my 5 year old 3 MP CoolPix provided sharper images
right out of the camera than does this K10D. Is that not a fair
reason to complain?

Olin
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

On Aug 3, 4:41 am, "Somebody" <nos... RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:
> The K10D does detail sharpening not edge sharpening and for some reason
> Pentax has their heads so far up their ass that they can't see and breath
> well enough to offer a second sharpening adjustment for edge sharpening for
> those that want that option.

It seems that brutally excessive sharpness sells cameras (and LCD TVs
for that matter). I prefer having a photorealistic image to something
that looks like a posterised cartoon. YMMV

> RAW files are great. JPGs... I have seen worse
> and I have seen better.

The JPEG encoding used by the Pentax (and some Nikon scanners) is at
the extreme end of what is possible under the JPEG standard. Nominally
it is IJG 100 scaled. It is not possible to encode a JPEG of the
source image with any higher fidelity. And you pay a huge price in
extra file size going from 99 to 100 for a very tiny improvement.

I wish the camera makers would allow users to set the required quality
factor directly as a number. But instead we have marketting speak
"Excellent", "Fine", "Good", "Medium", "Normal", "Rubbish" where every
maker has different ideas of what each term means.

Any defects in the Pentax JPEG are down to the lens or the default in-
camera preprocessing and that can be altered to taste if you really do
like to have haloes ringing around all sharp edge transitions (and
some people do). After all in the film and old chemical days that was
what some high acutance film developers were designed to do.
>
> They do sharpen well, if you want to have to sharpen all of your JPGs. If I
> wanted that kind of post processing I would just use RAW... which is what I do.

One important advantage for JPEG is that it takes less time to save
and is more compact.

RAW is superb for images with very high dynamic range.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:46b29998.5432988@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:57:07 +1000, "Pete D" <Doug.RemoveThis@is.a.moron.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The reports you have been reading have been written by users that would
>>rather have Mickey Mouse cartoon like characters than what was really
>>there
>>when the shutter was pressed, these people never take the time to learn
>>how
>>to use these excellent cameras. Even at the end of Phils review he said
>>that
>>if you do not like to PP then printing up to A3 is still excellent, just
>>how
>>big are you printing? I have printed 12x18 from my DS and it is razor
>>sharp
>>across the entire print.
>>
>>Go over to DP Review and find the Pentax discussion forum or go to one of
>>the many dedicated Pentax forums like www.pentaxworld.com or
>>www.pentaxforums.com
>
> As stated in my original post, I did read Phil's review in DP Review,
> and it was there that he made a strong point about the weakness in the
> camera's internal conversion software. And then he pointed out the
> software included on the CD, for installation on the users computer,
> was no better. He was the one who suggested using Adobe Camera RAW
> in its place. Don't get me wrong, I think other than this one
> weakness, I'm going to really like this camera. It has many great
> features, and I'm still learning them. But when a five year old, 3 mp
> CoolPix can generate sharper images, and I can prove it, then I really

All that means is that you have not got the camera set correctly for
printing with no PP. And you can't prove it because it simply is not true.
What I can prove is that I can print at A3 and it will be sharper and have
more detail than your 3MP camera and do it every time.


> agree with Phil's review statements. I just feel like Pentax dropped
> the ball with their software, and should include this fix in their
> next Firmware update.
>
> Olin
>>
>>Thousands and thousands of excellent photos taken with Pentax cameras and
>>a
>>huge amount of excellent advice on how to get the best results from your
>>camera.
>>
>>Cheers.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
> Over a year ago there were some posts on here about the top of the
> Pentax line then, I think it was the "iST" or something similar. It
> was stated that the 'in camera' software was rather poor in creating
> sharp .JPG files, but their RAW files could be converted to excellent
> .JPG files.
>
> Recently, I just bought the latest in the Pentax line, their K10D, and
> I'm finding the .JPG pics it produces are really no sharper than I've
> been getting for years from my various CoolPix cameras, the 995 to be
> specific. Then belatedly I read the dpreview.com summary of their
> tests on this K10D, and much to my dismay, they said essentially the
> same thing the story of a year ago said about the "iST" model. Also,
> dpreview said the software that Pentax furnishes for converting their
> RAW files did equally poorly. They recommended using something else,
> like Adobe Camera RAW to do the converting.
>
> This distresses me greatly, especially since the information was out
> there well over a year ago, and apparently Pentax has ignored these
> reports and just continued with the same poor quality software both
> in the camera and for the user to do the conversion. They've even
> issued 4 upgrades to their firmware for the K10D, and nothing there
> seems to address this issue.
>
> Anyone care to share their facts or opinions?
>
> Olin McDaniel
>
Have a read at this review
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k10d-review/

Better than the Dpreview one (imo). Mentions the 'softness' of jpegs
when using default settings (as you mentioned you do).

Clive
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

On Aug 3, 6:27 pm, omcdaniel.a....RemoveThis@mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel)
wrote:

> My next step will be to obtain the Adobe conversion software and run
> some tests with it. That will not be immediate, too many things gotta
> come first. But thanks again.
>

Hi,
If you want to test the waters with raw conversion without spending
money, you can try "Raw Therapee" (yes that really is the name...),
which is free, from here:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/
It is a good converter, and has quite handy sharpening controls (masks
etc). The main drawbacks for me are a) lack of "blinking
highlights" (to show overexposed areas) and b) it only outputs in srgb
colour space. Hardly a huge disadvantage! Anyway, considering also the
price, it's great! (and I'd definitely be using it if I had to choose
between it and Adobe Camera Raw, but that's me).
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I wish the camera makers would allow users to set the required quality
> factor directly as a number. But instead we have marketting speak
> "Excellent", "Fine", "Good", "Medium", "Normal", "Rubbish" where every
> maker has different ideas of what each term means.

I had an old Olympus point and shoot that had 'HQ' and 'SQ' and 'SHQ'
settings. After changing batteries (and thus wiping the settings), I
always had to look it up to find out which was which; I could never
remember.

I mean, what's the real difference between 'high' quality and 'super'
quality?

--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:46b2396b.6097664@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Over a year ago there were some posts on here about the top of the
> Pentax line then, I think it was the "iST" or something similar. It
> was stated that the 'in camera' software was rather poor in creating
> sharp .JPG files, but their RAW files could be converted to excellent
> .JPG files.
>
> Recently, I just bought the latest in the Pentax line, their K10D, and
> I'm finding the .JPG pics it produces are really no sharper than I've
> been getting for years from my various CoolPix cameras, the 995 to be
> specific. Then belatedly I read the dpreview.com summary of their
> tests on this K10D, and much to my dismay, they said essentially the
> same thing the story of a year ago said about the "iST" model. Also,
> dpreview said the software that Pentax furnishes for converting their
> RAW files did equally poorly. They recommended using something else,
> like Adobe Camera RAW to do the converting.
>
> This distresses me greatly, especially since the information was out
> there well over a year ago, and apparently Pentax has ignored these
> reports and just continued with the same poor quality software both
> in the camera and for the user to do the conversion. They've even
> issued 4 upgrades to their firmware for the K10D, and nothing there
> seems to address this issue.
>
> Anyone care to share their facts or opinions?
>
> Olin McDaniel

Pentax left the images soft on purpose, it's been documented by them many
times. You can do a lot more with a relatively unprocessed image than one
that's been half destroyed by clumsy in-camera sharpening.

My K100D is much the same as the K10D, despite the DPR review that says it's
excellent with jpgs. The jpgs are soft compared with almost any P&S.
However, take it from me, if you have the in-camera sharpening right down so
they're really soft then they sharpen up amazingly well on the computer and
look miles better than any P&S jpg output. Use RAW and it's even better.
Use RAW and Silkypix and it's especially good for colours and DR. Use
Silkypix for producing 2 different exposures from the same RAW image and
combine them in PhotoMatix and the resultant higher DR image is so amazingly
natural and dynamic and as sharp as you want to make it that it leaves any
P&S for dead and not just by a little bit either.
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:41:31 -0700, "Somebody" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com>
wrote:

>The K10D does detail sharpening not edge sharpening and for some reason
>Pentax has their heads so far up their ass that they can't see and breath
>well enough to offer a second sharpening adjustment for edge sharpening for
>those that want that option. RAW files are great. JPGs... I have seen worse
>and I have seen better.
>
>They do sharpen well, if you want to have to sharpen all of your JPGs. If I
>wanted that kind of post processing I would just use RAW... which is what I
>do.
>
>Somebody!
>
Thanks, it looks like there is someone here who agrees with me. At
least partially, HI.

Olin
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW