Thats absolutely fine, I have not been trying to prove that you had different settings, or even that you're assessment of the cameras was flawed. It was just a general point that I felt was worth clarifying about factors that can influence our shots as viewed in catalog / browser applications which might not be recognised as having such an effect. And how these camera custom settings might alter a particular default profile when opening into a range of RAW programs which is a bit of an unknown quantity I feel.

Getting back on track , think about this - David says his K511s image is BRIGHTER. What could cause this? Not any of the settings that he says me has managed exactly, and we assume the lighting levels stayed the same. This should have sounded some warnings.

Image catalogs (such as PS Elements organiser, Lightroom) and the PDCU folder view all display a JPEG preview, either the RAW file embedded one or they build a new one - as on the camera LCD display these small JPEGs will reflect the Custom Image Parameters applied in camera.
Pentax Custom Parameters include settings that control exposure and contrast. The effect of these will vary depending on the preset chosen and any adjustments to the sliders.

If David is noticing a difference in BRIGHTNESS of two images side by side in his catalogue or file browser then this is quite likely caused by such a Custom Image Parameter, which is why I have been bangin on about it! It is worth noting also that there are some obvious contrast differences between some of Davids images. It doesn't take much to imagine then that similar differences in sharpness could be caused also by differences in camera CIP settings for sharpness / fine sharpness 1 / 2 etc.

This data is contained in XMP form I believe, and will be contained within the DNG as well as rendered in the JPEG preview. The next question is how different converters will apply it, as these XMP fields may map onto similar control parameters within the program, and so alter the default opening state of the image.

Yes, Andrew that is a valid interpretation of my point! I am concerned that we often hear someone saying something like : 'these shots have been posted with absolutely no editing / alteration applied - what do you think of the differences?'

This raises some questions that we don't hear much - namely the issue of precisely what specific camera metadata is transferred with the file in a form readable by any given RAW converter. I believe most average users would not be aware of such details. I certainly am not! However, for example, I am aware that the Pentax Custom Image Parameters are transferred with a DNG into PDCU (which I usually use for initial RAW conversion and key adjustments) - and they do make a dramatic difference.

If I was posting comparison shots and had used PDCU for the conversion, then it would be absolutely critical that the Camera Customs settings were exactly equivilent, or the comparison would be invalid. Even a single unit of contrast difference between the two could prove deceptive in this context of comparing 'sharpness'. most defintaly any differences between the different 'sharpness fineness' settings would be critical.

It is important to highlight the fact that it is not possible to have a 'neutral' or 'off' setting for the camera custom image settings - they cannot be turned off - you always, for every shot, have a master preset selected and many fine tuning sliders with default positions for each preset. This info is all saved into the DNG and transferred with the file. We may think this info is insignificant for RAW files, but I am questioning whether this is so. It is difficult for us (at least those like me who aren't computer experts who understand programming) to know the exact affect of each parameter on the default state of the image when opened into a third party converter (eg ACR / Lightroom etc).

I just feel it is worth being sure about this before assuming that any perceived increased sharpness or resolution in a shot is in fact entirely due to the removed AA filter and not to some small internal parameter setting that the photographer is not even aware of.

Interestingly, and I admit I don't know if its significant, but Davids K5 mk1 shot contains less image data than his K511s shot - just had a quick look at the image properties and both shots are the same dimensions but have different file sizes.

I wonder is it possible for us to see the full exif data? This would contain the custom setting recorded by the camera.

David has said absolutely nothing at all about his camera custom image settings -it is not clear if he even knows what they were. And until it is clear precisely how ACR (or any RAW converter) applies this metadata, it is difficult, I think, to be certain that the levels of visable sharpness difference between the two is not in fact due to slight variations in the processing algorithims.

It was meant to be a more general point about web picture comparisons, and I was not saying that David's shots were definately not a valid comparison, but just that we need to be aware of the methods and processes going on in the background.

As we are now saying, the shots posted are not RAWs but in fact ACR conversions. Now ACR will contain camera profiles for individual models, of which we are dealing with two different ones here. Also David shoots DNGs, and this file will contain metadata including the camera Custom Image Parameters (namely a master preset and fine tuning options including 3 sharpness parameters amongst others). ACR can read a wide range of DNG metadata and it is difficult to know precisely the extent to which each of these metadata parameters affect the starting point of a clean fresh edit.

David stated the camera settings were the same, but even if he went through and precisely checked each individual custom image paramater on both bodies (I don't think he was that specific?) we don't know whether there have been any changes to the profiling of these parameters by Pentax since introducing the Mk11 bodies, nor the result of the conversion programs 'interpretation' of that data.

If the shots were RAW I don't think we could see them on the internet

I've joined in late here I know - just a thought about these type of comparisons from Pentax DSLRS and files types : unless we can use two plain RAW shots and put them through identical processing parameters in a single program, I am concerned that we may be being misled by things out of our control.

I'm not sure by what process david output his JPEGs, but if the shots are produced in camera, then there is no way to avoid a high amount of automated editing being applied without the users input at all. And we have no way to be sure that apparently equivalent settings of camera parameters between two models are in fact the same at all

It is a good idea to integrate sharpening approaches firmly within a workflow, and keep the purpose of each stage / type of sharpening clearly defined.

Apart from globally applied 'Capture Sharpening' (which could be on camera as in John's JPEG), or in a parametric editor rendering a working file from RAW (eg Lightroom, PDCU, Bibble etc), I am firmly of the mind now that selective sharpening to specific areas of an image is the best way to go.

There are clearly now a wide range of possibilities for this type of flexible and targeted work - Photoshop offers layering techniques or blending modes for example - other newer solutions take a different route. For example, the Topaz Detail Photoshop plugin (works in 16bit within Elements too) offers three groups of sliders divided into 'Large' 'Medium' & 'Small' detailing (these are basically predefined pixel radius ranges). You use a 'Boost' slider to adjust the precise radius setting within the overal range and the strength slider to ramp up (or down) the micro-contrast.

If more precise selective targeting is needed then the Plugin can be applied to a duplicate layer and masked as required. The plugin helpfully offers a selection of fine tuning sliders needed to restore any altered brightness caused by the detailing (eg white point and saturation adjust).

This type of software does give us perhaps an easier to understand and more intuitive means to achieve very sophisticated results without the complexity and number of preparatory steps required using Photoshop. I am trying to learn more about PS blending modes though, specifically those that isolate colour channels out from luminance data, as a means to prevent having to make counteradjustments (as I referred to with the Topaz Plugin).

OK, so 'there is some debate'. The problem with 35mm, either a slide or neg, is you can't do much with it, and all that resolution, as it is - you have to produce an output of some type, and this surely is where things break down. If you're scanning then you need a lot of elements in the process to come together optimally - equipment, age and condition of the original, good techniques and knowledge and skill, as well as software at the scan point to optimise the result.

A digital camera with FF can produce all this with just one press of the shutter.