Very good advice for any JPEG shooters. This highlights the great versatility of our DSLRs - they can produce RAW output containing the full 12 or 14 bit picture data the sensor is capable of - but to extract all of that you need to invest time and skill on the computer.

Or, take fuller control in the field and make use of the range of fine adjustments available via the menus. It's perhaps harder to see the effects on the screen in sunlight, but I guess you get used to them and remember what works. Then you have shots ready to go out the camera.

The price is that you do throw away a lot of the image data, so ultimately the images may not be as flexible for a wider range of output choices in the future.

It can be a bit hit and miss. I find it better to activate the grid lines, then use 'Image - Rotate - Custom' - here you can enter an exact percentage value, check the result, then 'Undo' and try again with a slight adjustment.

Make sure that in the preferences that 'snap to grid' is not active - I find it easier to make precise adjustments without this.

I think the main point about .psd format is to provide full compatibility across the different current, and previous versions of both Photoshop & Elements.

There is a setting within 'Preferences' which activiates 'Full compatability' - this makes sense if you will be opening the files on different versions of these programs or sharing them with others to open also.

.psd is really a 'working file' type of format - ie: a way of saving all the working in ongoing images, say if you're adding layers and taking time to apply different effects. It will remember all these settings and re-open the file in exactly the same way you left it, without compression.

In this respect it is a bit more efficient than TIFFs, which do also save layers, but produce a larger file size and take longer to save each time.

I am always being amazed here on this forum, that it is possible to draw out such a range of knowledge and experience, and what you're saying just above aliengrove just adds even more to that.

Its all food for thought and further experimenting, just like the contributions from the members further above also. It seems I am very lucky indeed with my chosen online printing service (FOTO.COM) - even though the sharpening is done before upload and there's no specific resizing, they seem able to create prints of any size that exactly match each other, and look the same as on the screen. I have peered close up at 12' x 8' prints and the same shot at 100cm x 70cm and can't tell any difference, so somehow they are just managing to reproduce exactly what they're sent at any size.

With this thread I tried to draw a dividing line between questions of print resizing and the specific image comparisons on the other thread. I would have struggled to produce meaningful conclusions about printed output as the variables would have been too many. It seems to me that it is best to take the conclusions from the comparisons as to type of image content and processing you use, then interpolate (not extrapolate ) to your own normal print process and preparations.

So its looks like mostly 4 then ('PS-Style' sharpening globally for lower level needs, and then the same approach but with differing radius settings using masks). I'm curious to know whether the conclusions and recomendations I have made match up with people's own decision - would you be in concord with my report and choose the AA filter model?

I see your point earlier about trying to get the best you can, but if the benefit is unlikely to be clear for an individual, I'm sure many would say they'd stick with the cheaper option.

This seems to support what I was seeing from our Pentax DNGs. As I observed, the multiple operations approach seemed kinder to the K5II file, allowing its finer detail to equal that of the K5IIs without the degradation and artifacts generated by a simpler less targeted technique.

Which of my 4 result categories would you put you own style and processing approach into ?

Tell me about it - those DNGs kept slipping through my fingers !

The interesting thing is, from what I've heard from early adopters and from what I have gathered about their style and processing choices, I don't think this testing will contradict many of them at all.

Most people should be able to identify their photography and chosen 'sharpening' approaches and slot into one of my 4 categories. I chose process 4 (basic PS - style sharpening) as representative of what I imagine to be the most commonly used sharpening technique.

Assuming this is the case (this basic sharpening technique is used), then for highly detailed images (landscapes, architecture, macro, still lifes etc) the K5IIs will give that extra bit more, which is valuable to those people. I'm sure some of our early adopters would place themselves into my category 4.

For myself, because I use these additional detailing tools, applied more selectively, I will be limiting the negative effects to a greater degree. So I am less likely to be depending on 'that extra bit'.

Its a nightmare, agreed! I've often seen questions on here about the desirability or not of having things like shadow correction & noise reduction active on the camera. I will stick my neck out here (lets wait for someone to say 'why don't you do a test Nigel ? ) and say that I very much doubt that these Pentax specific settings will have any effect at all to what you get on opening the file in any program other than PDCU.

It would be great if someone knew otherwise - please, tell us! If shooting RAW, then in PDCU it doesn't make much difference in the end - you can just activate them on the computer, plus you get additional controls also.

For JPEGs, yes, you'll get the effect applied in camera and burned into the shot. So my advice has always been - 'complete waste of time having them on at all if you shoot RAW and use PDCU '

Also, they can slow you down. I don't think they reduce burst speeds, but I do see it taking longer to display the image on the LCD, which can slow you down if you're checking this before continuing.

Ahhhh ... well, I'm not very keen on being associated with claims about sharpening tools that are more sophisticated than Photoshop - that is just going to open up a whole new can of worms !

I don't make any claims to know anything about the inner workings and algorithmic complexities of image sharpening. But I have seen that different software offers different ways of applying 'micro-contrast' enhancements. It would be fair to say that some newer offerings make less of a meal of it than others ... Sometimes it just comes down to quicker ways to apply it, avoiding compex selections, layers or masking.

Take a look at the Topaz Detail plugin (Topaz Labs), or the other software I use, Sagelight 4.0, which uses a definition slider coupled to radio buttons to preselect the effect onto shadows, mids or highs. This just uses invisible layers, cutting down the preparation.

But, the need for such tools, and how much of them you would use, is of course dependant on the style of your photos - its easy to go too far.