A long strip of forested high ground, with the Kenley valley below, this lovely spot seems to be more commonly frequented by dog walkers than landscape photographers (judging from the odd looks I was getting as I was spotted lurking under the overhanging trees). But I didn't care - a great combination of dense growth and a glorious long sunny night transformed me into a man on a mission!

All shot on the K7, a mixture of 14mm Samyang f2.8 and 28mm Pentax 'A' f2.8, all shot between f8.0 & f13. Tripod with mirror up and remote control.






























At the end of the ridge walk there is this basin where the Caterham & Kenley valleys meet, a place called Whyteleaf. This is a park and sportsground.
















All C & C's most welcome. Thanks for looking.

Thats a good summary! You can make the two things the same, up to a point. Its deciding how to judge that point that is tricky - and 'that point' will be different for each individual, depending on their photographic purpose and aspiration.

I've started an off-shoot thread about this printing issue - I feel there may be some misunderstandings about what I'm trying to achieve with it. I've started off with an explanation on the new thread ... 'Image Content Issues vs Output Needs' on the General Digital Photography forum. Check it out

This is an offshoot topic coming from the 'K5II vs s Choice Considerations' thread. I want to split it here because this relates to any camera, not just the K5 models - I want to keep the other thread for the testing and comparison matters specifically. But this printing stuff is important and related.

I want to clear up any misunderstandings about what I mean when I'm trying to consider suitablility for large printed output. It has to be understood that none of these processed images are having their dimensions or resolution altered. The 16Bit TIFF remains at the full pixel sizes and number of total pixels after each processing step. The adjustments to sharpness and details being made are not altering the total amount of image data in each shot - that remains the same amount as the camera sensors captured originally. But these image dimensions are not the only concern when deciding how big a print can go.

Here's a way to think about the considerations to make - say you have a nice portarait shot, but there's a slight bit of movement blur. You get a 5'x7' print made, and up close you can see the blur a bit, but put it on the bookshelf and everyone who passes says 'what a great shot!'.
So you order a big enlargement of it.

The online software recognises your max quality JPEG as having sufficient pixels (the dimensions x resolution) to produce an 'optimum' print at your chosen huge size. Great! Order it. Massive! But, when it arrives, sure, there's a lovely big colourful and smooth looking print - but the face looks out of focus, and now its a really big face, and the blurring has ruined it. The blurring has got bigger along with everything else. Waste of money!

So, you see that its not just about what specifc magnification or resolution a shot can tolerate to be successful at any particular print size - its actually about the image content, and the inherant 'quality' of that actual content as well. That is the issue I am exploring in relation to image content as captured by the 2 K5II models. How the content stands up to the processing needed to optimise clarity and detail (depending on type of shot - eg commercial product shot or beach snapshot) before any negative effects of this needed optimising becomes distracting and ruins it when printed big.

You have to factor in the image content, its latent 'quality', what is needed to optimise the presentation of the content that it will stand up to inspection at the large size, and how far you can go before any processing artifacts become too distracting that you can no longer consider such a big output. This is what my print considerations are all about over on the other thread

I think that's right - thats why I've been 'pushing' the shots with tools of this more 'modern' type, aiming to ensure that the optimizing will allow the big poster prints I like without any artifacts of those processes being obvious.

I guess there is this desire for a simple answer to a simple question - 'can you get the same out of the K5II with just a bit more 'sharpening'. The simple answer is no. For average output requirements up to certain limits it is clear that the 's' image will simply respond to simple 'sharpening' in the same way - it will just maintain its lead.

Its when the output requirements get more demanding (or you make it so) that you will reach a clear decision point more quickly, as the intensive processing will take its toll - then its a judgement call and you'll have to assess the priorities for the individual shot.

In my conclusions I am hoping to be able to summarize a range of situations that could act as a guide for individuals assessing theor ongoing needs.

Yes . There's already two ways that have been demonstrated - only shoot camera JPEGs, or do simple RAW conversion in PDCU. With in-camera JPEGs you get automatic boost to the K5II output, and without further processing there's nothing really between the two.

In PDCU the default camera profile apparently is already giving an extra boost to the K5II file on opening, and I cranked up the sharpness to maximum (+4) with no loss of quality between the two, and only a fraction of difference in definition on details. As that's the limit you can do in PDCU, then to exactly equalise it you'll need a tiny extra boost in another programme.

So someone doing basic RAW development in PDCU plus a little bit of enhancement in PS (say) after should have no trouble creating files that look exact. That is the conclusion that my methods have indicated.

I am now almost finished exploring the effects of more sophisticated detailing, trying to both extract the most 'detail rich' appearance for screen viewing , plus using that extra detail to increase the maximum potential print without quality loss.

I'm just about to conclude on this - I've passed the upper limit of this process to the point that the K5II image has suffered quality loss (on smooth textures and losing depth in the shadows). But the K5IIs image is holding up!

I intend to draw multiple conclusions - with this extra knowledge I myself would be more confident to make the best choice depending on my own photography and processing. I will also do some quick, more simple sharpening.

I appreciate the encouragement, thanks. I'm nearly there - Not too far to go now !!!

I don't feel able to say that specifically yet, not in printed output terms really. I'm not sure if we can make that leap from what I have shown so far. I'm comparing what's noticeable on the screen at different magnifications.

What can be seen on a print is also affected by the 'magnification' - ie: how far away you have your eyes to it.

I believe the limit to how big we can print is going to be limited both by the pixel dimensions and resolution, plus how far I can push the detailing and sharpening processes without affecting quality.

An Ongoing Workflow through to Output Sharpening

I am now sticking with the last two images compared in 16bit TIFF format.
Now I' m going to try some more agressive actions, aiming to enhance and add clarity to the image, and bring out visible details - with the aim being to prepare these shots for quality printing at a very big size.
I'm not going to make any further contrast, brightness or colour changes, and I'm not going to use any noise reduction - lets just stick to definition, clarity and detail enhancements.

For now I'm going to continue using my own chosen software for this work - later I will try and do similar things using standard Photoshop tools.

A) Definition (micro contrast) in Sagelight 4.0 with identical settings

First up is the K5II shot, into Sagelight 4.0. I have two 'Definition 'sliders', Strength & Radius. Default radius is 20 with the maximum 300. The' help' says that low values 'are more like standard sharpening', so I'll keep 20 set. I zoom to 100% and try a few strength settings between up to 100. The affect on the image is is very positive - a slight extra punch to sharpness, plus a tiny boost to contrast at a quite local level. Globally, viewed at fullscreen, this removes a slight hazy hint, and I now have a very deep and sharp looking picture. I settle on the strength of 50.

Next up into Sagelight is the K5IIs TIFF - I make the same definition settings and save out again. Just for reference, the un-compressed TIFFS saved in Sagelight are remaining at 92mb file size. I am saving out full-size JPEGs also as a record of each stage - these are coming out at 17mb.
So, now, side-by-side 100% comparisons show a clear result......the K5IIs image is pulling ahead in clarity terms.

I can more easily and consistently clearly see better definition in the 's' image. It seems as though the additional and more aggressive 'definition' processing is pulling out something more from the 's' shot than the standard one.

There is still nothing in it though at a full-screen view. The differences start to creep in at about the 70% magnification level.
I'm starting to take a good look at shadow areas now for noise levels, and checking on the clear textured surfaces to look for any disruption to patterns or smoothness.

I can report now that at this stage in the processing chain I am not seeing any sort of issues or quality degradation in the shadows or other smooth textures areas, on either of the images.

Yes, of course, I think that certainly applies to CMYK profiles. I suppose if working with a local firm you could get down to talking specific resolutions - not sure about specific sharpening and radius figures though. It may a bit of trial and error.

For testing purposes its going to be easier to try ourselves if we have a high quality machine.

I'm keeping the colour side of things out of it. I don't see myself carrying out any colour management testing anytime soon

I was aiming towards trying big prints at the end. Thats a great idea to print bits at magnification - will save on ink ! I'm not a 'home printer' though - I don't have a proper photographic machine.

I order my large posters (about 100cm / 70cm) from a website - when you select the image file it assess it and tells you a quality rating at the chosen size (I think 'optimum, good, fair, poor'). I wondered if this might give me some guidance - certainly if there was a difference in the detected quality between the two shots - but we may be talking about differences too small for this sort of thing to detect. I guess it goes on resolution figures?

But once I have a fully optimised file it would be great if another member could try to print some bits of them and report the results. I wouldn't tell them which was which though until we had their opinion on the prints first ...