Lets not forget that exposure from the camera depends also on the metering mode and where you point the camera before taking a shot. If you shoot outdoors in strong contrasty light then its easy for bright highlights (say clouds, bright reflective surfaces) to be prominent in the scene. Even on matrix mode (which will 'see' these brighter parts and try to compensate for them) this will result in lower exposures.

If you need better exposures at capture then try and identify the 'key tones' - say a face if a portrait, or something that is near to a mid-tone in the subject area. Point the camera at this to get the settings. If needed you can then press the exposure lock * button, recompose and shoot, or for more extended work switch to manual. Don't forget to remeter if the light levels change.

Keep an eye on highlights though, using the histogram or flashing warning on the LCD - if they are getting too high you could activate highlight correction on the camera.

Pentax Digital Camera Utility produces very high quality basic RAW conversions. It has a reputation for not being intuitive, but that is based mostly on misunderstanding of it IMO, and I have tried to correct that on this forum and promote understanding of it. The key difference between PDCU and other more common RAW converter software is that it presents the editing controls in the form of panels that mimic the on-camera menu controls (Eg the custom image settings, DR expansion such as highlight adjust / shadow correction), lens corrections etc.)

So it doesn't look like a 'normal' editor, something like Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW, which have the key controls laid out together and you move sort of from top to bottom.

PDCU then is ideal if you already take control over you shots on the camera by setting the custom image parameters and use the shadow / lens NR corrections, and you want even more control of the same things and even higher quality output. The JPEGs from the camera are of course 8it (as is the TIFF output) - but from PDCU you can get a glorious 16bit TIFF and much more fine control.

Limitations? It does not offer selections, or 'adjustment brush' type selective editing - you work on the whole shot, just as you do on the camera. I have a mini guide and a suggested workflow for the software up on the general photography forum as a sticky subject if you want to read more about it.

You are going to be told to use Lightroom, as it is very popular. There are alternatives though, some very good. RAW Therapee is very powerful and offers batch processing, is free, but takes quite a while to process each shot, maybe a minute or so after you hit 'process'.

My first choice is the extraordinary Sagelight 4.0, very reasonable and offering an enormous amount. Heres the site ... link

It is very quick, and offers quite a unique and intelligent approach to adjustments by combining common processes into one dedicated slider, (eg fill shadows slider includes radio buttons to activate 'add low tone contrast', 'wider' as you go - a sort of auto curves control but with the user in charge. It uses a hidden layers principal, ie you don't actually create layers yourself, the program builds up your work in auto layers, allowing easy rubbing back' with an undo brush or restore button. So selections are not needed. You can commit at any time with the 'apply' button and this effectively flattens your hidden layers and resets your controls to add more if needed.

Thats my promotion out the way! I strongly recommend it and if you would like any pointers of tips then I'd be only too happy

My take on it is that it is the impression that is given to the viewer that counts more - not any realities that may have been experienced by the photographer.

In the case of that mistletoe blot on MrBs Marlow shot ... well, thing is, it didn't look like anything other then some kind of dirt splot on his lens. Ruined the shot because of that. So should have been cloned out. A dirt splot does give any further interest or quality to a photo.

If something appears to be a technical defect, and you can't reasonably expect the average viewer to zoom in to 300% and carry out a microscopic examination to make an expert judgement, then we should treat it as a technical defect.

Another example I remember which caused debate was one of David Storms shots with some bright lit cloud bases right tight on the horizon. The effect was of a halo, a kind of processing artifact that is caused by adjusting the different tonal zones against each other. David said it wasn't, it was a natural effect that was 'there'. I wasn't too convinced by that, but even if we except the explanation on here that commentary is not available to the general audience. If it looks like a technical issue then I say treat it as one, and get rid of it.

Any blend-type approach has its pitfalls, and in this instance no amount of layer masking / selections or other separating wizardry stands any chance of 'keeping it simple'. Your 'keep it simple' version above has the stone window frame dark (ie based more on the exterior exposure). This is where any selections / masking become tricky - in reality there will be a natural blend / bleed of light values from the window onto the frame materials, merging gradually towards the lower light levels of the interior. It does not just jump from bright on the glass to dark on the stone window-frame - that is what a selection-type approach gives you.

To try and reproduce this natural effect by selections / mask opacity settings / selection feathering is a futile exercise. Better to take advantage of the HDR processing's natural take on this. Your HDR original has the correct light bleed / blend between the different zones - that is what the technique is designed to do. It worked well.

You just need to take the single HDR output file and do a few tidying up tweaks - white balance a bit, give the white-point a nudge up and some sharpening.

I would take any comments about it being an easy job with blending with a pinch of salt - until someone can actually demonstrate it with some delicacy.

Thanks Ralph & Steve. I am going to start a thread soon about manual flash working on Pentax, with a view to developing some practical tips & tricks .... this would seem to be necessary if using the Cactus as a single unit.

The Cactus system appears to offer a great value start to a small multi-light setup. I am wondering if the single unit may not be versatile enough for quick and easy use?

I believe the Metz products offer full P-TTL. They may also offer auto-flash (through their own sensor) which would be goo to have. I believe the latest Pentax models have removed this front sensor (its now an LCD light) so we won't have any auto control with manual lenses - I believe the previous generation of Pentax flashes did retain this option?

However, its only fair to also point out that the latest Pentax models have got some tasty new features including a video light and a front secondary flash for fill provided by the front LCD. the 360 adds more degress of bounce and twist as well.

The story about going bust was entirely believable!

The solution suggested by smeggy is very intricate and difficult - layer-blending windows is never easy as you have to use a brush stroke over every tiny detail of window frame to give it the interior lighting, and it is a painstaking task to get the right brush softness to make a perfect divide between the glass and its framing material. You'll spend a lot of time going back and forwards over the same bit until its right.

HDR is a much more intelligent solution (intelligent processing that is), and has done a great job of it here.

Update - I've looked through the PDF manual, and it does not appear that the front sensor on the flash unit is an actual light measuring / flash output cutoff type (like the old pre-TTL Pentax units). It looks like the sensor on the Cactus is only for remote sensoring and triggering from a master flash.

So its seems to be an all-manual operation. There are no inputs on the flash for telling it aperture or ISO, so it can not give any distance information or set its power output automatically. I must admit, these were the things I was hoping for. Even in manual I would like a bit of help, even just to speed things up a bit at the start.

You can control the zoom head and the power output directly on the flash. Apart from that the various functions relate to the rather sophisticated radio control wireless system and the various channels to choose. HSS is available and for multiple lights as well.

So I am left wondering if it really is an ideal gun to get for single unit operation, either on the hotshoe or off?

Sorry Andrew, I lost track of your thread, yes I guess the WB needs a compromise. Would be interesting to see what the K3s new AWB system would make of it!

I still think the HDR version has the most 'pizzazz' and depth, although I'd like to see it with a bit more sharpening. And I think the WB on the last one is the most natural. The issue with the tungsten is that the light source is not in the frame, so the yellow cast doesn't appear to come from anywhere - for that reason I'd opt for a cooler tone coming from the natural light outside.

Its an excellent example of appropriate HDR work!

Yes a great set. I especially appreciate the well chosen exposures - you've let the underneath of the train and the deep shadows on the trackbeds go very black, but thats acceptable here, and has allowed the colours to shine on the paintwork. There's very little in these two shots to suggest the modern world, it all looks very authentic