I value your acceptance that this might in fact be a possibility! This is a welcome contrast to others' outright dismissal, to me anyway

I'm working on some clearer objectives. There will be variations within each area of image 'quality', but I suspect there may prove to be sufficient technical differentiations obvious between the different approaches to lead to a consistent opinion and clear outcome.

This is not the place to try any kind of scientific testing, like is done on lenses for example, and I'm certainly not the person able to do this. Here the ultimate judge will always be photographers natural inclinations on what is seen as natural, realistic and just 'right'.

Based on the results of this first 'shootout', (48 / 0 so far) it would seem fair to conclude that by the means of these natural photographers instincts that this forum will be able to deliver a decisive verdict on any future comparison.

I appreciate that. I am feeling somewhat the underdog now But rest assured, my full software arsenal is oiled and highly tuned ready to take on the best that any challenger can throw its way!

Hey, what's happened to those votes - only 48 so far? Come on people!

And we have. We have found that people view and interpret photographs primarily in an artistic and emotional way, rather than in purely technical terms - prefering what they individually perceive to be a natural and realistic 'norm'. To allow a purely technical comparison we have learned it will necessary to nutralise or equalise those artistic and emotional values, or at least agree a common starting point.

We have learned that to fairly assess different processing workflows effectiveness we first need to agree common aims and desired results. It is this part of the methodology that now needs to be worked on. You can all rely on my continued enthusiasm to keep you in the piture and involved.

Welcome - its really interesting how the Pentax K mount has allowed many people to rekindle their photography enthusiasm. You've got a great new camera to work with, and there is a particular speacial satisfaction gained from being able to use all the old high quality lenses that are available.

I've only been on this Pentax forum for a few months, but there's a wide range of topics that crop up, plenty of alternative (conflicting?) views, but most importantly a fun vibe and healthy concern for all things Pentax. I look forward to hearing what you say!

I'm working on that

Surely good scientists don't just give up a theory simply because the first experiment failed to prove it?

I accept that. Thats still only my assertion. It remains to be proved that only a particular software lineup could produce specific results - but I still think this can be demonstrated, we just need more sophisticated methods to do so.

I have seen the flaws in the method John, as much as everyone. Lets see if we can improve science

It has been suggested that I'm not getting certain things, or that my experience is lacking in certain areas. Well, the one thing in all of this that I really can't understand - and I don't think there has been any coherant explanation for this particular position - is this idea that the only difference is down to the person working the software - that any individual (so long as they had similar skill levels on the different programs) would absolutely be able to replicate the precise same effects and quality of result on either software.

It seems to me that this remains as much a myth as my my own assertions concerning the ultimate potential of the different outputs.

I did say 'as far as this particular shootout is concerned'. What has been said then, more accurately, is that my particular image was more successful in these ways. When comparing the two images that is what people have been saying, is that not true?

I know it has not yet been proved that my approach is the only way this could have been achieved. It is still my assertion that ultimately a modular approach would give the better quality - we just have to find a better way to put it to the test!