Flink,
The general idea is that you work down the tabs from top to bottom.
So, first off, get the White Balance right! Don't rely on auto for this. Select one from the drop down list, and tweak it manually if necessary. This is where all the colour gets changed

Secondly, go to the Exposure tab. First, pick a film type that's suitable. Normally "Film Standard" is fine. However, for portraiture, I find that "Film Extra Shadow" is great (also superb for scenes with great changes in brightness where you want the detail shown in both highlights and shadows). "Film High Contrast" is great for images that "pop".
Having set the film type, use the auto adjust to get the exposure in the right area. Then manually adjust.
Once the exposure is correct, you may need to go back to the White Balance tab to adjust colour

Then it's the final stage - the "Focus" tab. Depending on your image, "Soft Look" may be your choice. This is my preferred method. However, "Normal Look" gives the harder, sharper, grainier look you might be used to.
Now adjust the sharpening values. If I use Soft Look, I normally go for an amount of 100 - 250, and a threshold of 2 or 3. Noise suppression is very powerful - if you have ISO200 images, turn the noise suppression to zero, colour banding to 15 (the camera default), and banding suppression off! (Very important for low ISO).

- Banding suppression does reduce the sharpness, and I find that the *ist-D almost always is fine with banding suppression at zero.

If you are using high ISO, then adjust the noise suppression until you get a reasonable compromise.

When that's all done, process the image!!

And if you haven't already done it, calibrate your monitor!!!!

Hope that helps,
Matt

Steve,

Absolutely agree... to a point LOL!

I did take the view "JPG for snapshots, RAW for serious", and have been caught out every time where the JPG was not up to my expectations and there was a fabulous opportunity. I had to purchase "dSLR tools" ($15) for Photoshop which saved me the last time I used JPG for a kiddies party shoot - allowing adjustments in exposure etc. So, as I mentioned, now I've got to the point where I shoot RAW only, just in case (and get ruthless with the files)

For me, at least, I find that RAW+C1 actually saves me time. I hardly spend any time in Photoshop now (as I used to do) tweaking and modding.

But, as you rightly say, there's nothing wrong with JPG for 90% of the people, 90% of the time.... until you get the hang of the RAW workflow

Matt

Absolutely not so You have four main advantages:
1. Better response to light, especially to huge differences
2. Ability to bring out more detail
3. Lower noise - especially useful for super high ISO images.
4. Finer, and quicker, control over white balance and overall colour balance.

Most of your images on ePz will be similar to JPG. However, if you try things like: http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=213097 and http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=213557 you get a better feel for P1C1. I nearly threw these away when using Adobe's RAW convertor. So glad I didn't Check out the high res versions. The iced grass was the most difficult - with other convertors the highlights just went "bleurgh" and there was no definition at all. Or the colour was just flat. Spent ages trying all the PS tricks I knew. Five minutes in C1 and I had exactly what I imagined when I took the shot... and some.

The only problematic thing, IMO, is that I've got very very picky about my lenses!! Shooting RAW shows what the glass is really like

Matt

Kevin,
I run P1C1 LE on a 3GHz P4 with 1Gb. Runs fine with 512Mb too. Also run a second copy (like Photoshop you can run on desktop and primary notebook) on a 1.8GHz Centrino tablet PC with 1Gb RAM. Prior to my tablet PC I was running on a 2.4GHz P4 notebook (that throttled down to 1.2GHz on battery and still ran C1 just fine).

C1 is really rather neat. It doesn't really matter how long it takes to process... you tweak the first image, put it on the queue, and get on with the next image. C1 just spits out the TIFFs or JPGs while you work on the subsequent images. Even though the actual number crunching takes a good while, you don't ever seem to notice it because it doesn't hamper your flow

I was contrasting the processing requirements of a small embedded CPU inside the camera that needs to take almost no power to give the battery life and process the image within a couple of seconds, versus a hunking desktop PC that takes maybe 30 seconds to process through C1LE. It's not surprising there's a LOT more maths going on in C1LE than could ever fit inside the camera! And the results show it too

Matt

Dave,
The whole thread is "Why RAW". You are correct that JPG is processed by the camera, and it's quite possible that the PC software bears some resemblence in terms of quality and algorithm. However, as P1C1 shows there are better, more sophisticated algorithms that do require a lot more computing power, and take a lot longer even on a 3GHz high end PC. But, for me at least, those results justify the extra processing power, disk space etc.
When I first started using JPG on the *ist-D I was completely over the moon with the quality. However, since mastering (IMHO!) the RAW workflow process, I've seen my image quality improve no end. Now, when I go back to regular JPG I am always severely disappointed. So, now, I only shoot RAW. Too many times I've shot JPG and thought "Bah! That was an ace image... if only I'd shot that RAW!" LOL!
Don't get me wrong, you can get fabulous images out of JPG-in-camera. But, once you've seen what RAW plus a good convertor (like P1C1) can do, you're not going to want to go back!!
Matt

I wasn't going to put it quite as strongly as that, but now that you mention it!!

The reason is quite simple and is to do with what RAW actually is. RAW isn't "complete", as it were. In the resulting TIFF image, there are three values per pixel - red, green, and blue. However, in the CCD although there are 6 million pixels, but they are divided up into 2x2 squares. Each square has two greens, one red, and one blue pixel. (i.e. GR/BG) That's the Bayer filter. Each physical pixel can only measure the brightness - not the colour, so the Bayer filter is the trick to get colour. So you have 3 million green pixels, 1.5 million red, and 1.5 million blue pixels.

When building up the final image, you have to guess the level of the other two greens, three reds, and three blues for each 2x2 square. You have to "guess" them so you end up with 6 million pixels each of red, blue, and green. It's the maths behind that "guessing" that accounts for most of the differences between RAW convertors.

You can just average them out - but that produces a softened image, a bit like a gaussian blue. Or you can use more complex maths (FFT and other such stuff) to guess the levels. (In a way it's the image equivalent to oversampling on the old CD players, if you know what that is.)

In the process of converting the RAW image into full pixels, you often get moire patterns. Good RAW convertors tackle that too.

Additionally, there's the way you process the intensity levels from the CCD and convert them to the final image - ie whether you try and replicate film, do it linearly etc. This area was the biggest revelation when it came to P1C1. I had some very high dynamic range images that I just couldn't wrestle with in the RAW convertor (PS-CS at the time). They were looking into the sun, and I just shelved the images. P1C1 got the result I wanted in 5 minutes.

Phew! Hope that explains some of the reasons why you can't really expect the camera manufacturer to write really good software. Though that said, there is a large room for improvement!!
Matt

Huge difference Kevin. Huge. But if all your PC can cope with is the Pentax convertor - then that's all you can do. If you can run RAWshooter Essentials (www.pixmantec.com) then that's better. Different again is the Adobe one (Photoshop Elements 3, or Photoshop CS2 or CS). Best, IMO is Capture One. For the reasons I gave above (Film-like response, quality, detail, noise reduction, hotspot etc etc etc)
Matt

Kevin,
As you have PS7, I'd go for P1C1
Download a trial version and give it a go! If you need any pointers, drop a new forum thread here and I'll do my best to answer!
Matt

Just for clarification:

Adobe DNG is just another RAW format, and not completely compatible (yet) with all convertors. It will squish a PEF file down to around 5.5Mb, while still retaining the same information (it uses lossless Huffman encoding).

Even if you use Adobe DNG you still need a RAW convertor

Photoshop Elements 3 is a good place to start if you don't have Photoshop, and as I said, Capture One is IMHO the best all round (if you can get to grips with it).

Other points - the RAW quality difference can be seen at 6x4 It's not just about printing big - it's about squeezing the most information out of the CCD. In camera JPG will apply sharpening to some degree or other. RAW gives you the ability to process first before sharpening, thereby avoid unnecessary artifacts, posterisation and the like.

Matt

Kevin,
The RAW vs JPG is perhaps a complex subject. It depends on your needs. John has raised some valid points, and if you find that JPG is good for you - stick with that. RAW files are much larger, and do require processing at the PC.

There are many RAW convertors out there, and I'll deal with those at the end.

Personally, I find only use RAW. Here are some reasons why:

* Greater dynamic range. For shots into sunlight, or where there are great variations in light and shadow, RAW gives much more headroom. You can shoot first, and decide later.

* Push/Pull processing. Since the RAW file has a finer degree of sensitivity, you can push and pull at between 1 to 2 f-stops with RAW. I have found this invaluable when doing low light shots - gigs etc.

* Colour control. When using RAW you have a much finer control over colour balance. Not just a case of picking the WB setting, but you can colour match each shot, handle mixed lighting, make the image slightly warmer or cooler. Depending on the convertor you use, you can have control over individual hue ranges and adjust them! For tricky lighting you only need a small patch of grey, or one frame of grey for the session and you can colour match all the frames to that one sample.

* Better resolution. Again, depending on the convertor, you can get much higher quality (in terms of fine details) than JPG. The PC software can apply more complex algorithms in converting from the RAW Bayer matrix image. Some RAW convertors can upsample up to 4x (Photoshop CS RAW and Capture One Pro). Has to be seen to be believed!

* Hot pixels. Some RAW convertors (notable Capture One) can automatically remove pixel hot spots in RAW. This has saved me hours of processing when using ISO800 to ISO3200 when doing concerts and plays.

* Better noise control. Again, depending on the convertor, you can get much, much cleaner images than you can ever get with JPG, especially for low light.

* Wider colour gamut. JPG when set to sRGB is a very limiting colour gamut. You will find that the red channel can often "blow out" (examine it in Photoshop, say on a portrait to see what I mean). You can use AdobeRGB which gives you a wider gamut and solves a lot of those problems. However, in RAW you can choose your colour gamut on output. For images that need a fair bit of Photoshopping, converting from RAW to 16-bit TIFF in the ProPhoto colour space gives ample headroom for editing and saves you from a lot of posterization problems (like when you tweak curves, levels etc).

* Double processing. For tricky shots - like very wide dynamic range images, or images with multiple light sources - you can process RAW several times. For example, you can create one JPG or TIFF that's exposed for the highlights, one for the shadows and blend them in PS using layers and layermasks. Alternatively for difficult lighting, you can create a JPG/TIFF with colour balance for the tungsten, then one for daylight and blend the two (this technique is useful for creating natural looking room shots where there's a window).

* More consistent results between frames. The RAW convertor usually allows you to copy the settings for one image frame to others. This yields very close results between frames.

Phew! Sounds like I need to write an article!!

In addition, the RAW convertors vary greatly. Here's my thoughts on the convertors:

* Camera supplied convertor. Usually not much good. Just provides basic processing. Doesn't really show the benefits of RAW.

* Photoshop CS, CS2, PSE3. The RAW convertors are pretty good, and I used these before discovering other products.

* Pixmantec RAWshooter Essentials. Great product, mainly because it's free! Takes a bit of learning. Handles low ISO images very well, but personally I find the image noise unwieldy at ISO1600 and ISO3200 particularly. Definitely worth trying though!

* Phase One Capture One. Available in two version. The Pro version is $500 (I think), and the LE is $99 (plus VAT etc). I use the LE version exclusively. The hot spot removal, noise control, excellent film-type response curves all make this a complete breeze. It actually saves me time! You can also purchase it in the UK from www.ephotozineshop.com

Hope that helps!
Matt