I don't deny that the PDCU interface could be improved - in fact to do its job better it certainly could be updated in look, and should ideally resemble more closely the actual camera LCD views that a lot of it represents.

We could debate what camera makers should give their customers - as Steve said above historically there weren't the choices available like now. We expect any RAW converter now to open any file, and if it won't we demand updates.

There's plenty of room for PDCU to be used alongside or alternating with other RAW software. I believe for many photographers, perhaps those who normally shoot JPEGs, then PDCU could be a valuable aid or backup.

With JPEGs you would want to get the shot as correct straight from the camera, so these shooters would be more likely to spend time setting the various correction and custom image settings, as well as taking care with WB and dynamic range - all of which is controllable on the camera. But for those problamatic shots, or when there wasn't time to get it all set before taking the shot, then you could shoot RAW also and use PDCU to carry out high quality fine tuning, with very similar controls and options to what you are used to on the camera.

This purpose and function is very different to a 'normal' RAW workflow, where another converter would be more appropriate.

Well, I guess the camera just records the settings in the file - they would be 'applied' to the JPEG preview by the camera processor, but the RAW would need to be opened into PDCU before the recorded settings were applied.

I never use the PDCU noise reduction, and I tend to leave it off on the camera, because I like to use Topaz DeNoise (within PS Elements as a plugin) which is far more flexible and controllable. But in general I have noticed that any activated camera settings (such as Distortion Correction or custom image settings like sharpness) will cause the equivalent PDCU sliders to move to reflect those camera settings already when the file is first opened.

This process is quite transparent. The bigger question, which we never seem to get answered for certain, is whether any Pentax camera settings recorded in the RAW files are detected and acted upon by any third party editors, such as Lightroom, ACR, RawTherapee etc.

I have not seen any evidence that this is so.

Yeah, I don't know how LR is supposed to recognize such camera settings. PDCU is the way to go if you like to control your shots using the camera items and features. And it can output 16bit TIFFs as well, which the camera can't

Hello to Joel too I can only respond to specific points that you actually write down - you said that PDCU (specifically) was c..p and had been run through the 'destructive hands of Pentax hacks'. I appreciate you see some use in the program (as a file browser & viewer), but that's not the core of it, and probably not the reason that some dislike it.

I've never avoided the fact that it is commonly disliked - my point is simply that this is due to misunderstanding of its intention and functioning, which is really very different to other RAW converters, Silkypix included. As I have said many times, it is not laid out in any way like a typical RAW file program, but is structured more to reflect and the in-camera controls and menu items that 'edit' files.

I just felt your comment was a bit unfair without placing it in the full context. Once people have learnt to navigate around the interface in a logical way, many have found PDCU to produce excellent images. I use 3 or 4 different converters, and I still consistently find PDCU 4 provides the highest quality results. I would qualify this by saying this is limited to those shots not requiring 'major surgery' - in fact, anything that could have been set and output from the camera can be achieved with better quality in glorious 16bit from PDCU.

I don't really see why camera makers should be expected to provide free sophisticated RAW software, a very specialized thing. What Pentax have given us is very good at what it needs to do.

How does the camera NR setting apply to a RAW file? Sure, the parameter will be recorded as 'on', or 'high' low' whatever - but until the image is rendered it has no effect, surely?

PDCU will certainly act on any activated NR setting from the camera, but I have yet to see evidence that other software would do so. It has been an ongoing question I think, so if anyone can show such effects direct from the camera with any third part software (eg Lightroom, Aperture, ACR etc) it would be very interesting.

I have always therefore left the NR off, in the same way as highlight / shadow corrections, dist / CA corrections when shooting RAW only - they only slow down the display of the JPEG preview for LCD monitor review, so serve no purpose in this situation.

For JPEG shooting, then yes, they should be activated as required.

This sort of ignorant stuff is hardly helpful. It would be better to step back and consider how PDCU relates both to other RAW converters and to the cameras themselves.

PDCU is not intended to act as some sort of 'Silkypix Lite' freebie - the interface layout is designed to represent the key image editing features of the cameras. In this way it mimics certain of the menu items and custom image control as laid out on the camera LCD interface - this is the extent of the 'destructive hands of Pentax software hacks'.

The approach is obviously intended to allow users to retrospectively apply camera settings (plus a few extras) to their RAW files in case of error in setting up the camera for the shoot, or if not using JPEGs and you like the camera menu controls.

Just because many more experienced users don't process in this manner (eg using Lightroom or something else & don't apply camera custom settings) doesn't of itself mean the approach is poor or inferior. Many people report excellent output results from PDCU once it is understood.

Its a good realisation of my point . I guess it always helps to see things to understand them. I prefer it too, but I also appreciate the atmosphere of the original.

To an extent what you describe is 'normal'. The contrast-detect AF system in live view is by design slower than the system used during viewfinder operation. It will be worse on flat surfaces or areas of the same tones.

Try moving the square around using the 4-way controller first and place it over your subject, aiming for a spot that has a noticeable edge. This should increase the speed of focus 'capture'.

If you're finding it does not work well enough for you, you can switch the live view AF mode to 'phase detect' (using a menu item setting). This will set the camera to use the dedicated AF sensors below the pentaprism and will be fast and accurate. The only issue is that to do this requires the mirror to flip back down for the light to be passed to the sensors - so the live view image will 'black out' for a second. But when it restores you should be nicely focused.

For this approach its probably best to keep the focusing and shutter operations separate, so you are sure you've got focus before capture. So maybe using the rear AF button would be helpful - press this for the focusing process, then once you're happy use the shutter button to take the picture. Again, this can be controlled by the menu items.

As is my own shot in the surrey hills - a straight exposure using the camera's brain produced mostly pitch black. Of course, we use various techniques to create a better balance when shooting, maybe ND grads, or as I did, separate exposures for sky & ground.

I'm glad it has been interesting to consider this ... I fully accept that a silhouette-type effect can be atmospheric and desirable in a scene like this (as indeed yours is), but I am just concerned that we don't accept this kind of 'camera meter-created error' as automatically correct, when it may have just become a kind of ingrained 'natural' due to our long experiences with reflected light meters.

The core 'machinery' of your LX and my own K7 are very similar. That's one of the pleasures of using a high spec DSLR - it feels and sounds just like the high spec film SLRs of earlier times. As I pointed out earlier, high-tech enhancements and extra features are not the preserve of digital bodies only - the best film era slrs were brimming with controls and configuration options to give the greatest possible shooting flexibility. Our top range modern DSLRs have a lot of this too, plus by design, extra items relating to the digital capture and image control aspects.

But all of this is 'extra'. Both examples can be paired down to the basics and operated in 'learning mode' equally effectively.