I'd have hoped it would too and I may try that one. But Pentax don't show the *istD as compatible with it!

John K

Slightly off topic, but have had another on tonight's bulletin too! Two days in a row.



This one is of Noctilucent clouds taken at 1.45am this morning.

John K

I have just been looking at the Pentax website for the current versions of their software as last time I tried any Silkypix was really slooow on my old XP system.

One would think one software package would have been developed that would handle images produced by the Q, K-5 and K20D etc. But no, each has their own listed! Seems I could fill a hard drive just with different varieties of Pentax imaging software!

The *ist D / DS / DL / DS2 /DL2 / K100D / K10D /K100D Super / K20D /K200D / K-m apparently require PENTAX PHOTO Browser 3 and
PENTAX PHOTO Laboratory 3 Update v.3.81

The K-7 / K-x / 645D / K-r /K-5 / K-5II / K-5IIs require PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4 Update v4.40(or 4.41 for Mac)

The Q / Q10 / K-01 / K-30 require SILKYPIX Developer Studio 3.0 for PENTAX

and the Optio's have something else entirely (MediaImpression 3.6.1 LE)!

If one has kept the older cameras, is there really any benefit in installing each of these packages and I wonder why the current cameras cannot manage with just the one, given Lightroom and Elements etc. do not need the Pentax software installed to function.

Surely one current package could be produced to deal with all the company's products? And with the Q apparently needing something different to the K-5 seems ridiculous - they're contemporary products after all.

Given the plethora of packages I'm tempted to continue to give the whole lot a miss still, but am I missing something and does anyone have the whole lot installed just to develop their raw files separately with the camera's dedicated package? If so, which one's best?

John K

Could to be avoid confusion with http://www.pentaxmedical.com/ - a division of the old company that didn't go to Ricoh.

John K

There is a small program which was produced by a German Magazine which tests cards - H2testw 1.4

See: http://sosfakeflash.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/h2testw-14-gold-standard-in-detecti...

Or you may prefer to read this thread from the transatlantic Pentax forum where it is discussed: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/180203-has-anyone-used-h2testw-c...

John K

Thanks. I think this processing issue depends on what you want. I doubt a plain image would have stood out from others received, so sometimes a bit of processing can add that bit of a difference. It may also depend on monitors and viewing conditions.
Sometimes HDR can look really odd when it induces dark skies with an obvious ghost effect where it adjoins another part of an image. However if it just adds a bit of extra vibrance to a scene without looking too OTT it can sometimes help.
To me the out of camera shots look just a little flat in this instance, probably caused by the smoke effects from the aircraft, so the extra contrast and brightening up helps (in my opinion.) I'm not into HDR just for the sake of it.

John K

I agree with Stan. #2 suffers from a bit of burn out. If this is from a RAW file I am sure that could be recovered with a touch of highlight reduction. But the others - really good!

John K

Who said?

John K

Just wish to say that the original #2 was shown on the Look North weather bulletin tonight.

John K

I see where you mean. Thanks.

John K