Welcome, glad to see you found your way through the door into the forum!

That's not at all what people have said. There's no denying your enthusuiasm but you don't seem to be taking on board what people have actually said.

The USA Pentax Forum is what people are usually referring to. There are equivalents of Pentax User, not connected, all over the world.

For macro shots using live view on a tripod I'd use the K-01 for preference, as it's designed to work that way. No mirror being held up, it's likely to last a little better as well.

There's a previous post that refers to the viewfinder being small. It will be smaller than a K-5 if the view is not 100%, but as we're talking about Live View that's something else.

The K-5 is fine with Live View, clearly the best yet, but the K-01 is probably even better and this should carry over to the K-5 II and the K-5 IIs.

I can now see where the problem lies, not a problem as such, but the polarisation of ideas.

It's a matter of workflow, whereas the thread started off as a matter of quality of results. Hence the confusion.

FWIW, when I shoot a RAW file, which is not unless needed, I don't save it in ACR, I open it. Then continue to deal with it like any other image.

Anyway, whatever suits the individual is fine, but it's always worth looking at alternatives to keep abreast of developments.

I'm not sure how you think you know this, Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop work seamlessly together to do anything you want. I don't see where the limitation is.

I'm not sure how much experience you have in using Adobe products?

Calm down please gentlemen, and please get back on topic.

You're assuming Clare that the equipment has the ability to faithfully record what the eye sees. This has never been true in photography, from the very start onwards.

Film did not have the same response curve as they eye, so filters were used if a more natural rendidtion was required. Exaggerating this also was popular as it added drama to a shot.

Digital sensors reproduce colours pretty well, but can be fooled by excessive amounts of IR or UV light. Hence the blocking filters employed by manufacturers, to a greater or lesser extent. Dynamic range also plays a part, and over-exposed areas of green will tend to look very over-bright and sickly yellow very easily.

Add to this the human eye, and some people are more or less colour blind or see colours differently to each other. Just look at how some TV sets are adjusted by their users, who happily ignore bright orange faces and think it's a good picture.

There's more to this than just dismissing it as nonsense. I have a friend who used to work in colour printing and as part of one of his lectures he demonstates very well just how far off people's colour perception can be.

Pictures taken at high altitudes often look overly blue, but our eyes correct it out, whereas film and digital camerras don't. Hence we use filters or adjust WB to suit. It is perhaps the same thing here - none of David's images on his website look so overtly blue and his reworking of the image IMHO looks very much better.