K30 settings

I shoot mostly landscape at base ISO but am curious about how other users have the K30 set up with regards to shadow and highlight correction. I would also be interested to hear from anyone who has experimented with sharpness and noise reduction, etc

I have the K-5, not the K-30 but I would imagine it is a similar performer. I would leave shadow and highlight correction switched off altogether and do your work in post processing. Also, don't be afraid to shoot landscapes at ISO 200 to ISO 400 - you will notice no practical difference and the extra speed is useful if hand-holding.

Shoot in RAW and do your sharpness / NR in post processing - I think you'll find that noise reduction is rarely required. Be careful to get it right in camera whilst shooting and in particular don't burn out any highlights and you will be amazed what your images will look like with a bit of careful RAW processing.

Regards
David

Jings, thought no one at all was going to come back so many thanks for taking the time.
Well, here goes,I shoot entirely jpeg and post process in Picasa and am happy with the output. I have had pretty harsh comments over the years for not doing raw,but hate with a passion the heavy pp'd shots that litter some groups on Flickr.
So if anyone shoots jpeg with a K30 and would like to share settings it would be appreciated.

That's a very interesting sentence, Donald. It's like saying I don't like swans because they are too green.

Really, shooting in RAW and heavy pp are not inextricably linked. Quite the opposite. The only difference between RAW and jpeg is that there is a greater capability for control in certain situations in pp with RAW. That's all. Some would say that it's possible to retain greater quality, but I certainly don't want to get into that old argument again (even though I do shoot in RAW).

Well if it helps my JPEG settings are +2 sharpness +1 contrast (though this may vary a little depending on the lens) and highlight and shadow correction set to auto.

I have also been known to experiment with RAW and can say that in a scene with wide dynamic range skies look a lot more detailed. I tend towards conservative PP too

I dont want to get into the raw argument either,in fact I even have Lightroom, just never seem to have the time to sit and pp.

Funny thing is that not doing raw has never been raised by anyone visiting my flickr page,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/donaldm/

Hi Donald, I can understand what you mean, but would echo what Darkskies has said above. There is absolutely no reason why 'heavy PP' is the result of shooting in RAW. The reason for my recommendations is that I believe you will get more from your camera if you shoot this way and the end result in terms of image quality and dynamic range will usually be better when shooting in RAW and processing carefully. Yes, it does take longer, but I think it is really worth the effort.

It's all about personal preference though and if you don't wish to spend time doing PP, then jpeg is the only way to go. I actually enjoy the PP process stage as much as taking the photos so for me it's not a problem!

Regards
David

Am I correct in thinking that everyone with a digital camera shoots in RAW. Just some people let the camera do the PP and don't bother to save the RAW file.

No, not by a long way. Many people do shoot using RAW capture, but many use JPEG capture.

Unless we need to shoot RAW, we use Premium JPEG as our capture method.

But does the camera not produce a RAW file first before it processes it into a JPEG

By its very nature yes. The camera captures the RAW data and if you have it set to JPEG it saves the parameters designated as a JPEG. This is why you can opt to also save a RAW file, provided you do it straight away before you make another JPEG capture, even when set to JPEG only.

It's a useful feature.

Oh boy, can we get back onto subject instead of raw vs jpeg.
Thinking about it now the question I should have asked is this,
The K30 has shadow correction and highlight correction settings, so why would you NOT have this switched on ?
Do either of them affect the image outside of the obvious effect on shadows and highlights,is there for an instance an increase in noise ?

Because it reduces the options for very low and very high ISO settings. It also changes the tonal values, which may or may not be what we want.

oooh thanks John I did not know this ...must re check my settings sometime.

+1 fro RAW does not = over processed in editing software - it's bizarre, surreal and plain stark raving bonkers to say/think that . Indeed it gives more scope for images to be less heavily processed than handing all control to the camera - it just puzzles me how this debate ever has any "legs" .

Well, nobody did actually say that, but in any event we do need to respect the opinions of others.