K5 and all those digital filters and effects !

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

MartynUK

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 17:16
Are they wasted on the majority of users??

I'm still working my way through my new K5 manual and looking forward to the weekend - but I'm suprised at the amount of filter effects etc that have been built into the camera - a camera which, I would guess, most people using it would shoot RAW.

I 'assume' I'm not mistaken in thinking that these only apply to in-camera jpegs and that, somehow or other, the effects could be duplicated in photoshop etc.

Is anyone making/planning to make much use of them?? Re-assessing whether RAW shooting is necessary???

I do like the fit in top pocket size manual though!

Martyn
Martyn

http://www.flickr.com/photos/northamptonshirecouk/

johnriley

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 17:23
I suspect it may be wrong to assume that most people shoot in RAW. Many professionals don't and not everyone else does either.

I just look at it that it does no harm for these effects to be there and some might indeed find them useful. They are certainly worth a try.
Best regards, John

beginner

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 17:27
I'm a jpeg only man!
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!

MartynUK

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 17:29
johnriley wrote:
I suspect it may be wrong to assume that most people shoot in RAW. Many professionals don't and not everyone else does either.

That's an intersting comment John! When you look at all the magazines etc. they would lead you to believe that anyone who is serious about their photography takes the RAW route! But I've often wondered whether, infact, the in-camera JPEG processing is superior to anything that external programs could produce.

Sounds like I'll be experimenting this weekend!!
Martyn

http://www.flickr.com/photos/northamptonshirecouk/

Don

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 17:36
MartynUK wrote:
Are they wasted on the majority of users??

I'm still working my way through my new K5 manual and looking forward to the weekend - but I'm suprised at the amount of filter effects etc that have been built into the camera - a camera which, I would guess, most people using it would shoot RAW.

I 'assume' I'm not mistaken in thinking that these only apply to in-camera jpegs and that, somehow or other, the effects could be duplicated in photoshop etc.

Is anyone making/planning to make much use of them?? Re-assessing whether RAW shooting is necessary???

I do like the fit in top pocket size manual though!

Martyn

I've found them useful.
in the field, while shooting, I'll occasionally see an image I think will look good b&w or Sepia or what-have-you... so I'll process the raw into a jpeg in camera, then apply the filter.
I can then show the idea to the model or client in camera, if they or I dislike it, I delete it, and continue shooting.... later when importing the files, I stack them in Aperture, open the raw file and apply the effects (with more control) in aperture or cs2....
It helps me remember which images were shot specifically for conversion in post.
Sometimes the j-peg right out of the camera is fine and I don't have to bother redoing it. Bonus!
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

Anvh

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 17:49
Journalist photographers have a good reason to shoot in JPG, they often have no time to edit their photo's and to send all the photo's to the office in RAW

MartynUK wrote:
But I've often wondered whether, infact, the in-camera JPEG processing is superior to anything that external programs could produce.

Your computer and the software on it is much more sophisticated and has more power then your camera.

At least ACR is able to pull more details out of the photo then the camera can.
Here you can find the comparison.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5IMAGING.HTM
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

MarkTaylor

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 19:32
Is there a third option? I tend to shoot in RAW+ so I can mess around with filters and effects without sacrificing the RAW file. OTOH if a JPEG looks fine straight out of the camera or needs only minor tweaking, I see no reason to waste time working with the RAW file.

Okay, shooting RAW+ takes a little more space on your memory cards, but compared to your Camera and Lenses or your Computer and Software, memory is pretty cheap. It makes sense to invest in a little more of it to get the most out of these more expensive items and save a little time in PP without limiting your options.
My Flickr Pentax K-5 K-5 II Sigma 8-16mm F/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD ASL SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F/2.8 ED [IF] SDM SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR Vivitar 100mm F/3.5 Macro AF Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2
Last Edited by MarkTaylor on 09/03/2011 - 19:33

Anvh

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 20:31
MarkTaylor wrote:
OTOH if a JPEG looks fine straight out of the camera or needs only minor tweaking, I see no reason to waste time working with the RAW file.

Quality.
The RAW file has more details and 14bit of colour information, JPG only 8bit but in all honesty you need to look really good and have the ability to display the differnces and most can't.

I only shoot in RAW now, it only takes 1 click with the mouse to convert it into a JPG but you can never turn a JPG into a RAW.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

MarkTaylor

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 20:40
Anvh wrote:
Quality.
The RAW file has more details and 14bit of colour information, JPG only 8bit...

Unless I'm intending to make a large print of the end result the quality issue seems moot - I'd have to make a real effort to actually see the difference even on my 27" 2560 x 1440 (higher than 'true HD' resolution) iMac screen.

If I suddenly decide I want make that big print at a later date - well if it's a picture I liked I'll have kept the RAW anyway.

Anvh wrote:
I only shoot in RAW now, it only takes 1 click with the mouse to convert it into a JPG but you can never turn a JPG into a RAW.

If you've applied some digital filters/effects or whatever (which is what we're discussing) it is going to take a bit more than one click. Hence shooting in RAW+. You still have the RAW so there's no need to attempt the impossible transformation mentioned.

Unless I'm missing some major point that's staring me in the face here, the only disadvantage to shooting RAW+ is you take up a little more space on your memory card. It's possible you might slow down camera performance a little bit too, but I doubt it's noticeable.
My Flickr Pentax K-5 K-5 II Sigma 8-16mm F/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD ASL SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F/2.8 ED [IF] SDM SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR Vivitar 100mm F/3.5 Macro AF Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2
Last Edited by MarkTaylor on 09/03/2011 - 20:55

Don

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 20:55
hard drives are cheap. Memory cards are cheap. Computers are plenty powerful.
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

MarkTaylor

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 21:05
Don wrote:
hard drives are cheap. Memory cards are cheap. Computers are plenty powerful.
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?

I'm a beginner, so I constantly screw up. Frankly I find the suggestion which I have encountered in certain Photography magazines etc. that JPEGs are for beginners and RAW for the more advanced photographer quite bizarre. Beginners screw up more so have all the more reason to shoot in RAW!

However I also like to play with the digital filters etc. Sometimes they can give really pleasing results straight out of the camera. Hence I shoot in RAW+.

Get to play with in-camera filters/effects + Still have RAW to fall back on = Best of both worlds.

As you mentioned memory is cheap. As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer. Why choose when you can, quite literally, have your cake AND eat it.

However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples.
My Flickr Pentax K-5 K-5 II Sigma 8-16mm F/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD ASL SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F/2.8 ED [IF] SDM SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR Vivitar 100mm F/3.5 Macro AF Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2
Last Edited by MarkTaylor on 09/03/2011 - 21:10

Don

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 21:15
MarkTaylor wrote:
Don wrote:
hard drives are cheap. Memory cards are cheap. Computers are plenty powerful.
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?

I'm a beginner, so I constantly screw up. Frankly I find the suggestion which I have encountered in certain Photography magazines etc. that JPEGs are for beginners and RAW for the more advanced photographer quite bizarre. Beginners screw up more so have all the more reason to shoot in RAW!

However I also like to play with the digital filters etc. Sometimes they can give really pleasing results straight out of the camera. Hence I shoot in RAW+.

Get to play with in-camera filters/effects + Still have RAW to fall back on = Best of both worlds.

As you mentioned memory is cheap. As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer. Why choose when you can, quite literally, have your cake AND eat it.

However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples.

you overlooked the previous post where I mention using "In camera raw processing".... my point was it is easier to convert a raw file to jpeg than the other way round which is not possible.... shooting both is ok, but harldy needed and possibly a time waster in post.
digital filters is an occasional use item for me, handy when there's no computer handy in the field...
frankly, jpegs are not just for beginners, and never were just for beginners, but since the price drops of storage, and the shift towards digital sharing and home printing, they've become obsolete as far as I'm concerned. Raw to computer to jpeg works as fast and as easy as raw to jpeg in camera to computer, and gives you one more chance to fix if you need it.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 09/03/2011 - 21:27

MarkTaylor

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 21:29
Don wrote:
you overlooked the previous post where I mention using "In camera raw processing".... my point was it is easier to convert a raw file to jpeg than the other way round which is not possible.... shooting both is ok, but harldy needed and possibly a time waster in post.
digital filters is an occasional use item for me, handy when there's no computer handy in the field...

I don't think I overlooked anything - my point was I like, at least from time to time, to play with the in camera filters and effects as I shoot. Given that's the case for me it's a no-brainer. If I want to apply the filter/effects afterwards I can do that too. The camera just creates a second JPEG. If wasted time in post is the only downside I can live with it. It only amounts to the time taken to decide between the JPEG and the RAW and move an extra file to the trash. Maybe if I were a professional that would have an impact but right now it's tiny fish.

MarkTaylor wrote:
However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples.

Perhaps I could have re-worded that as:

"However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects as you shoot, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples."

...Which is really what I meant, so apologies for any confusion which may have made it look like I was ignoring your earlier point there.
My Flickr Pentax K-5 K-5 II Sigma 8-16mm F/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD ASL SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F/2.8 ED [IF] SDM SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR Vivitar 100mm F/3.5 Macro AF Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2
Last Edited by MarkTaylor on 09/03/2011 - 21:42

Tyr

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 21:44
It can be useful sometimes and I can find it hard to reproduce some of the effects later. If I get something I like with in camera PP I'll keep it. Don't use it often though, it did come in handy with the model shoot I recently did. Sort of like what Don mentioned. It is annoying that our laptop, even though small, has a relatively large power brick and short battery life.
Regards,
Dan

https://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/

nipper

Link Posted 09/03/2011 - 23:26
I only shoot j peg and like the filters and not really interested in raw
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.