Pentax DSLR EXIF Data in Different Programmes

Yes, that seems to have the same fields as the K3 shot. Don't know what the 'Low Normal Hard' descriptions are meant to signify .... again, they don't correspond to any actual setting on the camera. Interestingly your shot here has the 'Landscape' preset but with specific slider values also, whereas the K3 shot had all of these at '0'. Do you know from memory if you would have made these specific slider settings yourself or were they automatically there from the landscape preset?

The contrast, saturation and sharpness data fields seem to crop up in a range of different exif viewers ....and they all show those strange 'hard' 'normal' 'high' descriptions. This is what I meant earlier about 'data mismatch' ..... could it be that these are generic information fields that are somehow autofilled with generic type information in the absence of Pentax - specific inputs ..... or is it more likely that Pentax have just had to fill in the fields with these generic terms as thats the only way to use the fields? Maybe they just have to have something in them for it to work properly?

Its a great range of information, although a tool for specialised use I'd suggest. As far as actual editing programmes go, it may be the case that if you want to see the camera settings laid out in a simple but complete way then you have to turn to PDCU.

I guess its worth pointing out that these strange descriptions we keep seeing popping up { Hard, Normal, High for example) do not appear in the PDCU image info list at all ..... as they are not Pentax settings for anything. I can only assume therefore that they are generic entries in the external exif standard that need to be populated with something just to fill them in ....??

PDCU is not included with all Pentax cameras.

One other thing I see in the data from the K3 shot, there are two different ISO figures ...1600 in the exif section , and 2500 in the MakerNotes section ..... What does that mean??

Do we need all this rubbish?

Yes.

From the documentation; I'm not going to dig through the code to find out what [Value 0] means but it's to give you the idea.

0x001f Saturation int16u[n] (1 or 2 values)
[Value 0]
0 = Low
1 = Normal
2 = High
3 = Med Low
4 = Med High 5 = Very Low
6 = Very High
7 = -4
8 = +4
65535 = None

0x0020 Contrast int16u[n] (1 or 2 values)
[Value 0]
0 = Low
1 = Normal
2 = High
3 = Med Low
4 = Med High 5 = Very Low
6 = Very High
7 = -4
8 = +4

0x0021 Sharpness int16u[n] (1 or 2 values)
[Value 0]
0 = Soft
1 = Normal
2 = Hard
3 = Med Soft
4 = Med Hard 5 = Very Soft
6 = Very Hard
7 = -4
8 = +4

Ask Pentax One of them is the official EXIF tag; the other one is for 'internal' use (and does not have to adhere to the official EXIF tag).

Sigh. Tell me what's wrong with researching a topic before posting on it?

I had. I'd just completed 2 weeks work into extracting EXIF data - specifically PENTAX MakerNotes for another website. [If you don't understand the difference between the EXIF standard and MakerNotes please see richandfleur's note - or read the 20-odd pages of technical notes from the author of EXIFtool!]

I was quoting from the same source as SteveLedger. [At least 1 website now makes this available to members.] Anything else is a less than best guess and possibly wrong.

sterretje has got the correct key. So yes, EXIFtool could simply supply these as numbers rather than converting to the standard terms, but just look what that would mean ... Starting from -4 thru 0 to (+)4 as on the camera the number sequence would be, I think: 7 5 3 0 1 4 2 6 8 - so '1' not '0' is the mid-point

How could this be true? Originally (1995) it was spec'd as 0, 1, 2 - Soft, Normal and Hard. Who would ever need more?

Do some software packages simply return those 0 - 8 numbers without decoding - ie in a meaningless manner? I sure some do. And there is another wrinkle in there which almost guarantees that some software returns the values from the wrong EXIF field, so that the results are only possibly correct for Soft, Normal and Hard - -2, 0 and +2 in the rear display of recent PENTAX dslrs!

Getting the idea as to the complexity of this stuff yet? [Could have explained this yesterday, but got pissed off being told I was smoking something rather than being asked to explain. Plus I'm never sure what I can say without it getting 'disappeared'.]

As to the question of ISO 1600 and 2500 - I can't find the reference at the moment, but did read that the usual source of this discrepancy is that the first is the nearest (or preceding?) 'Standard' (historic - meaning last century) value, whereas the PENTAX number is the actual value - subject to rounding used by - but undisclosed by - PENTAX. Likely in the order of +/-100 to save space. Again lots of software - specially older - will report just one - the first one of the 2.

And to sterretje's open question about Value 0 - My guess is this is not significant to our current issue. The PENTAX MakerNotes cover all PENTAX cameras, not just dslrs. It says there can be 1 or 2 values. Value 0 is just the first - and only - one in the case of dslrs.

And anyway I only posted in the other thread to try and say that Contrast isn't likely the issue, but OP has his Daylight White Balance set to that which you'd use for Tungsten Studio Lights. And that will produce muddy yellowish orange images just like ...

Anyway, back to improving website software rather than debating Bye!

I'm glad you've joined the debate ! Yes, as you've shown here, this exif issue IS complex .... It was my realisation of this that made me promote the discussion here amongst Pentax photographers . It's a discussion and raising of questions, more so than a research exercise, which is not my interest.

My interest is in gaining a general understanding of where we have to be cautious about the validity of this information, especially when trying to interpret it with a view to improved camera operation.

What I have seen so far is a very unclear picture. It seems that an ' extraction' tool , as Steve has shown' contains the most detail, although there needs to be specialised knowledge I think about which items to use. Third party editing software has to be treated carefully I feel, as I am not seeing any of these programs presenting a complete and accurate record of our Pentax DSLR settings ... Certainly when we start seeing all these references like ' hard', 'high' or ' 'normal'' , we have to be very suspicious of their actual meaning in terms of our camera settings.

Bye the way, when I referred to 0 as the centre, I mean it is the centre position of the camera control sliders, and then are minus 4 and plus 4 positions either side of this centre 0. The advantage I find of PDCU (if available for your camera) is that it exactly presents every data field in this exact same format, so this makes it very easy to quickly take in and understand what was set on the camera. I wish we had a dedicated Pentax information tool that would do this for all of our cameras ... The nice thing is it strips out all the extra unneeded detail and confusing contradictions, making it a most practical tool to support image settings understanding.

Sorry but somebody here needs to get a life
Does anybody really need all this exif stuff?

Box Brownie users don't

--

Clearly some people do

Yes

Actually, I'd be happy with a very limited and Pentax specific range of cameras settings data. This is exactly what PDCU offers, but a much smaller, handier dedicated viewing tool would be even better.

Nobody needs to read any thread if they're not interested ... That's the great choice we have. But its good to know there's plenty of interest there in the background ....

I think it's good to know what information is retrievable from the files we share on the web.
As Nigel implies, just because you can post doesn't mean you should.

I contacted the author of Exiftool and explained the situation re Contrast, etc. After some feedback from the developer, and some sample tests by myself, he has updated his app to provide the data in the way that we see it on the back of the camera. The previous EXIF standard inspired text values are still displayed - in parenthesis - for those who are already used to this format, but the main display is now -4 through 0 to +4

Note this doesn't effect the data retrieved, it was always correct in PENTAX terms, but it is now represented in a more accessible way for mere mortals.

If you want to see it - and the new K-3 specific EXIF data you can find it on the other mobile friendly PENTAX site.