Hi folks New pics taken this morn (8am) Frost and Sun YEH !

Hi folks,

Here are a few pics took this morn at 8am with tthe K10D they were all took in Jpeg so are not fantastically sharp. A few have been edited in photoshop for shadow/highlight and sharpness.

Most were took with -1 ev and saturation and contrast up a notch with cameras own settings to create a bit of warmth etc..

Let me know what you all think honest opinions please

Yours total ametuar and new to DSLR (k10D)

Pete

Taking pictures in JPEG is not a reason to expect them not to be sharp. I know there is a lot of talk about RAW capture and there can easily be the perception that it is the only route to quality, but that isn't true by a long way.

There are lots of professionals that use JPEG as well as lots who use RAW, and both camps will expect their pictures to be sharp.

I'm impressed that you could get up so early in the morning!

Nice images - like the 3rd one Sat3feb1.jpg

How about a pose on the park bench next time

Now you've done it I'm going to a local chalk stream and see what I can find. The sun is out - at last

I was umming and ahhing about getting up early this am having seen the weekends forecast. Anyway the bag is packed and I'm off out this avo and will wait for an even frostier morning tomorrow...

Gorgeous day but lacking cotton wool clouds (Mr glass half empty!!!)

Nice shots Pete, rather atmospheric...

Will

thanks Rog have a good Day

Thanks to John point taken about Sharpness and Jpegs.

I think its down to taste i like the idea you can sharpen by choice post image but it would be nice if Pentax put a exta option in the next firmware to sharpen jpegs even more than the current camera settings do.

This current sharpening setting only takes it to a certain level most time people who want sharper images have to edit later.

I also think it may be down to the lense i only have the kit lense the 18-55 i believe there are better ones out there for landscape Quote me if im wrong ?

Ive head the 16-45 is good any ideas

Pete

The 18-55mm is fully capable of producing superb A3 prints and is very sharp when stopped down. Perhaps use f8 - f16 for best results. Sue and I have put lots of A3 prints into competitions using this lens.

Having said that, the 16-45mm is indeed better, but it is not something that leaps out at you unless you can compare large prints side by side, closely and critically.

Taken viewed in isolation, no-one would think that the 18-55mm is not sharp. With good photographic technique it is excellent.

thanks John

Nice piccies: I too like the 3rd one best!

Andy

I agree with 'johnriley', you can get good results with the 18-55mm, and if I couldn't get sharp results in jpeg mode, the camera would be on ebay tomorrow.

You can get good landscapes with the 18-55m, the 16-45mm will get you a little bit wider, and you can go to extremes with the 10-17mm lens, where you have to lean forward to take a picture, or your feet will be in frame, you will also get the fish-eye distortion.

There is the 12-24mm wide angle lens, that is corrected for the distortion, and from what I hear from other users on this forum, it is a top-notch performer.


Re. the pictures, the top one is not balanced, it seems to have something missing from the top left hand corner and the horizon is sloping a bit, the second one is a little 'busy' and needs a person in a red jumper running through it. The 3rd and 4th pictures are a lot better, with the 4th one being the best. I think I would have exposed for the highlights, so that the trees were a bit more in silhouette and some of the detail in the houses could be lost.

Here is one I took in Shetland on Thursday, I exposed for the sky so that the detail of the house and land would be lost,




Well, you did ask for opinions, but as I am partial to Jack Daniels and like The Simpsons, my opinions may be distorted

Shooting RAW does nothing for sharpness.

The greatest advantage of shooting RAW, for me, is that it allows me to play with exposure after the event. With JPEG, what you see is all you've got.

Galoot makes the point that he would have exposed for the highlights in Pete's fourth picture. Shooting RAW, he can make that choice at the computer. Shooting JPEG, he'd have to find another sunny morning and re-shoot.

Hmm. I suspect that those professionals who allegedly shoot JPEG are somewhat computer-phobic. There is no GOOD reason to shoot JPEG, and thereby restrict your options, though a lack of storage capacity may sometimes force you to do so.

G

PS: I prefer the fourth picture, though I also like the texture of the post on number 3.

It could be, but you still have to post process JPEG files, so I'm not sure that it makes much difference from that point of view.

The reasons I choose to mainly shoot JPEG are the total compatibility over time (I have no support issues with my JPEG files of any age), the reuced demand on storage space, a slight preference for the "look" of a JPEG (just like I prefer Tri-X to HP5) and having no issues with exposure technique (I can get 36/36 spot on exposures with a slide film, so there's no problem with digital).

As you say, George, this has nothing to do with sharpness, which we all expect to be spot on. If it's not, then the technique must be the first place to look.

John,

I have to concede that if you can guarantee perfect exposure every time, then RAW loses much of its advantage. However, I'm just not so accomplished!

G

Hi guys thanks for all the useful comments im learning all the time.

Its nice to see the forum up and running again i missed it over the weekend.

PS im just about to post a thread for my first problem with K10D


Cheers Pete

I bet he only got up cos' he had to take the dog out


Nice shots Pete, I vote for the bridge shot as well.

nice comment about the dog but he wouldnt come he had more sence and decided a warm house and bed was the best option so off i went on my own in the freezing cold