Um pa paa! A worthy win with a most unusual and original image (at least as far as photos inside churches go!). Impressive clarity and presence and the shallow DOF adds impact.

I don’t use AWB, even for RAW ....I always use a preset with fine tuning tweaking. I find the best time to get colours right is when you still have the scene / subject right in front of you. The ‘As Shot’ WB values are transferred directly via metadata to RAW conversion software anyway, so if it’s right in the camera it can be just as right on the computer as well.

Pitfalls to avoid (and Ive fallen down them myself) is consistent colour management settings through your whole workflow, plus making sure your camera LCD is set as neutral as possible (to be able to accurately fine tune the WB setting while you are looking at the actual scene /subject).

I suppose the camera maker wants to play safe, and it has long been said that Pentax DSLRs are programmed to slightly underexpose in order to protect highlights, certainly from the K5 onwards. In response to this Pentax shooters have long been told they can underexpose for safety and raise the shadows in processing later.

I think this is still a compromise but a valid one when necessary and more complex options are not available. But it should not be the recipe for every scenario and image. As the photographer we should take control over all our image captures and aim to get them as right as possible in exposure terms.

Great image! Looks very natural and in it's element

And someone even told me over at PentaxForums that in M camera mode with a flash on in P-TTL mode, that the EC control on the camera adjusts the flash exposure! Apparently.

There's loads of little tricks and tips about our cameras now, many of which those used to much older equipment will never need to explore. They're all different ways to achieve the same things.

Going back to the original question specifically ..... Even for RAW capture we should aim for the optimal exposure on the camera. Adjusting exposure later on the computer will still be a compromise in IQ terms, even in RAW.

Well you're very kind Derek, but I would rate your skills with the actual macro captures higher!

The softbox to the side gives good light, but there would be practical problems with positioning for your type of macros.... The box itself would push on the foliage and maybe scare off the bugs, or the light might be blocked by twigs etc in the way.

Thanks also Rasazashaikh, I'm glad you liked the flowers!

Thanks Derek Now, here's a killer combination: your amazing bug macros with my softbox lighting from the side! Would we need both of us together to make the combination, or could either one of us bring it all together?

My moneys on you, if you can get the flash gear sorted. I tried to get a shot of a spider on a web that day. I got the softbox in real close, had it all framed nicely ..... then my big clodhoppers moved and bumped a strand of the web somewhere down near my ankles, and the spider scarpered off and hid behind a leaf! I'm afraid I have to learn more about the stealth involved. I'd better stick to flowers for now .....

I think it has a "ring" type autofocus drive (is that what he meant perhaps?) .... This type of AF design adds to the circumference (thickness) of the lens. I imagine the extra elements referred to add to the length, and it all adds to the weight .......oh, and the price!

It's most certainly not a "nifty fifty". I was surprised that they chose to bring such a beast to market as I have viewed such a thing as a gimmicky extravagance, not at all necessary given the ISO performance of the camera it's actually meant to go on.

However I've seen some interesting images taken with it and there is a certain elan and lushness apparent to the best shots I've seen, certainly enough to justify it for those who can afford it. ..... But still an unnessesary luxury for those of us who can't!

Thankyou Gareth, I'm pleased you saw them

And "Natural Light" wins by four to one!

Stub, advocating flash here is probably swimming against the tide There is a common tendency to equate "natural" light with being obviously better. I suspect its "obviously better" for most because its more easily obtainable. How many times have we seen people write "I am a natural light photographer", and then a flash advocate writes in response "that means he just doesn't know how to use flash" !

I think there should be understanding and appreciation from both sides ..... here with Rogers shots, I find the light works best in the first one. The others I find the contrast too great (shadows very deep and sudden) and there are distracting hotspots on the lit sides. So perhaps a reflector could have been tried, plus some way to diffuse the light more.

If that was something I wanted to "improve" then yes, two flashes with diffusion could do it .... equally perhaps a white surface to reflect light back into the shadow side, plus some material over the window might achieve a similar result with only natural light.

Where there is a real difference between the two is the subject of exposure time ..... natural light in this sort of situation may well mean quite long exposure times, so the need for steadiness or support. Non flash users may not appreciate the sheer power and flexibility that comes from being able to shoot at ISO100, 1/180th sec and F11, in quite dim conditions.