One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet:

You need a sturdy tripod when using extension tubes, especially when you use all three. You'll want to set the smallest aperture (i.e. the biggest f-number) you can get, something like f22 to get everything in focus, and that usually requires a pretty long exposure (sometimes a few seconds). Set the camera to "Av" mode and choose f22.

However, if you want the shallow depth of field effect (where you have sharp focus in one small area), then use a wider aperture (i.e. smaller f-number like f4). But you must be extremely careful to focus accurately - take your time!

Getting good macro results requires a great deal of care and patience, but the results are hugely satisfying

Matt

Carrie,

The genuine Pentax extension tubes do not have the electrical contacts. Some third party ones (such as Kenko, Teleplus, Jessops) have the contacts - these will relay the aperture and lens information and will allow full metering and exposure options.

Just check that first

Matt

Carrie,
I bought mine second hand from Jessops.
I seem to remember seeing some in the bargain bucket of Jessops in Queens Rd not so long ago. Give them a call (or the Western Rd branch). Failing that, try Clock Tower Cameras (just off Queens Road) - http://www.clocktowercameras.co.uk/ - they're very helpful in there

Just make sure they have the electrical contacts on them and the lens should work fine in auto exposure (but manual focus).

Matt

Just quick note about exposure compensation: I was referring to what compensation is preferable, not to what's available

Hi Liam,

For me I do most of the work in C1LE: WB adjustment, exposure, and contrast (I often tweak the curve in C1 to add contrast or deepen the perceived saturation). Generally it's saved me a lot of time doing boring stuff in PS.

I never sharpen in C1. I always do that in PS (with my action of course ).

Additionally, if a shot is particularly demanding, then I'll do localised adjustments in PS. Dodge & burn (usually with a soft-light layer), localised saturation changes, and localised contrast changes.

If it's a really, really, tough image then I'll expose twice in C1 (once for shadows, once for highlights) and manually blend the images with layers in PS. This technique is very helpful for landscapes where there is no "one" exposure that fits the whole image.

As far as lattitude goes in RAW: I reckon you can overexpose a touch (around 1.5 stops) - but watch out for being completely blown out. As far as shadows: 2 stops is the practical limit. The deeper you go into the shadows, the more noise there is, and although you may be able to eek out 3 stops the noise just gets horrible.

(FYI, this is a result of having a linear response in the CCD, while light is logarithmic. A full half of the data range is in the top stop of exposure, the next stop has a quarter of the data range, the next has an eight and so on.)

For correcting badly () exposed JPGs, I found the "dSLR Tools" plugin a real help in PS. ( http://actions.home.att.net/dSLR_Tools.html )

Hope that sheds some light on the matter
Matt

Maybe yes, maybe no

The focus mechanism in the Optio range of cameras is novel, and we found it can get stuck in an "off-limits" position. In that state the lens extends, the camera beeps and retracts it and powers off. The "mic" setting (audio record only) worked fine, as did playback.

Read at your own risk!...
With a little bit of investigation we found that manually turning the focus mechanism was enough to do the trick... however, this required opening the unit and locating it. In the Optio S40 it was near the lens, and is visible as a worm thread with a small slot in the end (which we turned), and bingo

There was another thread on this... will see if I can dig it up...
Here: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1577&highlight=optio+s40+fo...
Matt

If only it were that easy
To develop firmware you need two things (apart from the skill & experience of course):
1) The correct development environment
2) The firmware source code

Point (1) is expensive. For example, the development system and operating system license for my current commercial project cost a fair bit - i.e. I could probably buy one of each Pentax lens and body ever made and still have change over.

Point (2) would be a no-go. There's just no way Pentax will release the source code to an unknown entity. Source code represents knowledge and time, and you never just give that away Mind you, I'd certainly be onto the challenge if they changed their mind!! (Hint: Pentax - you could release it under strict NDA, that's no problem with me, I do it all the time!)

Without the source code, you have to resort to hacking the firmware... and that involves serious amounts of time and patience, and only enables you to produce limited changes to the original firmware. (It's the software equivalent of completely taking apart a Pentax LX without a manual )

Sorry to disappoint!

But as Arthur Dent right said - you can "hack" the header of the PEF file to lie about the camera type I did that with an *ist-DL file (just changed the "L" to an "S" in the header with a hex editor and voilá!)

Matt

Hardwired - no.

Take too long - not in uncompressed form (so the DNG files would be pretty much the same size as the PEF)

Feasible - probably not. Firmware development is a serious business (it's the business I'm in), and the process of redesigning an already working system, integrating another huge chunk of code, and fully testing it costs a serious amount of time and money. I suspect they'd rather spend that time and money (especially time!) on the new gear - because that's where the revenue is.

But you can wish...

Matt

If CS opens the resulting DNG file and RawShooter doesn't - that's the only conclusion I can come to!
The DNG standard is not a simple one - it's as complicated as the original RAW formats. The only difference is that it's completely documented and open (although it does have the extensions available to "tuck away" camera specific data such as Nikon custom white balance settings - but those extensions shouldn't affect any application that can't read them. It should just skip over the unknown bits).

I would say definitely give C1LE a go. Before you freak out on it, check out my quick guide first: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1765
To be honest, I like the RawShooter interface with the ability to tag images etc. But I simply cannot beat the C1LE output quality. Adobe's convertor comes close, and does allow upsizing (which the C1LE version doesn't do, but the expensive Pro version does). Occasionally I find it easier to just open in PS-CS2 directly, but for the most part I use C1LE exclusively.

Matt

Peter,
It's not entirely as simple as you make out in the above post

The Adobe DNG is an open standard (that is: anyone can download the spec and write apps to handle that spec). However, there's a wide range of options within that spec. It is not just "a compression option" as you mention.

The process of taking any RAW file and converting to DNG requires intimate knowledge of the originating RAW format. The DNG itself can specify lossless encoding (unlike JPG which throws information away to squeeze it smaller), but it doesn't have to compress. (The Samsung top end digicam uses DNG but not compressed )

I quite agree that the next range of Pentax cameras should use DNG format - I've been championing that since DNG came out. Hopefully, with Samsung's existing commitment to DNG the new Pentax DSLR/DMF will use DNG.

I reckon there's probably something else amiss with the Fuji + RawShooter. It could be they've not followed the standard 100%.

Personally, I would try Capture One too. I've tried all the RAW convertor apps, and C1 consistently produces much better quality (more "film like" output. (There's an interesting review: http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=426 - much of the comparison is equally valid to the cheaper LE version that I use).

Hope that helps!
Matt