The main issue I have when snapping the kids running around is getting shutter speeds high enough without cranking up the ISO too much (I do only have a K7!)- ok out in the sun, but indoors and in dull lighting it can be the main issue, more so than autofocus I find.

The muted tones suit the player and the surroundings, but yes, the sax itself probably wants a bit more 'gleam'. The various small hotspots of light don't have a clear source, which makes them appear a bit unnatural.

There's a logic to what you say about the additional, inherent, extra 'resolving' ability of the 's'.

What this testing is telling me though is that you will only get a consistent practical benefit under certain conditions - there are variables of subject type, processing styles and the intended output that will reduce the visible advantage, or render it insignificant. That is what has emerged from this controlled testing.

I am going to summarize all this and should post conclusions tomorrow.

That would be utter madness !

If anyone's still interested in listening, the supplied software with the K7 (Pentax Digital Camera Utility), a simplified form of Silkypix which includes software implementation of the 'in-camera' image controls, is very useful and provides excellent results, It is not the most well designed interface, true, but that's because it doesn't aim to be a generic RAW converter - most of its editing panels mimic the camera controls.

LR clearly offers more - its a different package, but the learning curve is greater also. There is information about LR widely available, and help on using the Pentax software is here on this forum.

Cut it out you lot, or this could all go to my head!

Rest assured, even my supreme powers of self control have been sorely tested of late

GETTING NEARER TO FINAL CONCLUSIONS

So, how will these new results from Photoshop affect the decision making?

Now I need to compare my two efforts to see which would be my first choice for my large print in terms of 'good' detail.

I go back to my earlier version of the K5IIs image (run through the PDCU - Sagelight - Topaz workflow) and I see again the excellent 'sizzle' & 'presense' now apparent, with little degradation on smooth tones or contrast breakdown to detract when viewed big.

Side by side I check this image against my PS Elements sharpened version (200% value). At 100% view I immediately notice that the very fine small details are sharper in the Photoshop version, although with noticable jagged lines. The 'Topaz' version is less crisp at this fine level, without the jaggedness, but also includes added boost to larger areas and textures.

Looked at fullsize the Photoshop version loses it's impact - it has a smoother and flatter appearance, slightly dull. The 'Topaz' version has better separation between the items, and that more real feeling to it, like you can touch the objects.

I realise this must be because my Photoshop sharpening was limited to a single radius level, 0.7, so just the finer details. The Topaz work has acted on a wider range of detail automatically, and the benefits are clear to see.

Remember I had reached the upper limit of sharpening in PS Elements on the 's' shot and exceeded that in the K5II version (with exaggerated jagged fine lines and rough textures appearing) - so my choice is clear. For this particular style of highly intricate and detailed subject, both for screen viewing and large printed output, I clearly want to use the K5IIs image - this has given me undoubted visable benfits.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your input on this. Finding the right point in such a complex workflow for all the various enhancement and re- sizing operations is going to take a bit of experimenting.

For now, I am happy to leave the re-sampling out of the K5II comparisons. Its an extra dimension that won't really affect a camera purchase choice. Individuals will have to consider their personal printing needs and factor their own knowledge in to it.

I'm certainly glad that I've found a good online service where it doesn't need consideration at all

I couldn't resist

IMAGE RESIZING TEST

Ok, I fired up the Resize Image box. Taking the KIIs .psd file that had the 200% sharpening applied, I see the pixel dimensions as 4928x3264, and document size is 52x34 cm.

I choose from the drop-down box 'Bicubic Smoother'.

I've been talking about my 100x70 cm poster prints, so lets try that - leaving 'Constrain Proportions' ticked (my maths is rubbish ..) , I activate 'Resample Image' and key in 100 cm width - straight away this gives me 66cm height, and my pixel dimensions are 9449x 6258. Resolution remains at 240. Wow, I hope this algorithm is a good one! Maybe its not such a big increase?

I save out to a new version, and open up the smaller one alongside.
I can see it straight away. The new resampled version has lost its edge completely. The fine crisp, slightly jagged, lines have lost their 'jag', but probably lost a good 70 - 100% of sharpening as well!

Hmmmm..., maybe this algorithm is not such a good one? There's no way I'm going to start resampling like this and sending the file to my printers. They clearly have something much better up their sleeve, based on the supurb results I've always had on these 100x70cm posters.
I don't see this affecting the outcomes of the 'content' assesments on the comparison thread.

I'll certainly give it a go - thanks for that Rob, and Will too. I guess as everything is being 'upscaled' together its reasonable to assume that both the 'good' quality aspects as well as the 'bad' that I am seeing during the sharpening stages will equally be exaggerated. But its worth running a few tests.

I don't think it needs to delay any conclusions based on the methodology I've been pursuing - but sometime in the future I'll call up my PS Elements 'Resize Image' dialogue and punch in some numbers .... just have to check out those 'Beginners Guides' first

Sorry - a quick correction. The last paragraph, 3rd sentence is about the K5II, not the 's'.... it should read 'But the K5II image has gone beyond what I would accept - .....'