This was a challenge to try and produce the best quality output,in visable terms, using two different software approaches - the integrated all-in-one (such as ACR+PS or Lightroom) against the 'modular' approach - using different programs for specific processing functions. That was the clearly stated aim.

I challenged users of an integrated type approach to try their hand against my software arsenal. I have been provocative in my claim that picking the best functions from different software would lead to higher quality output.

Another aim was to have some fun! And learn a few things. I have for sure, I hope others have appreciated these aspects of it too.

I am reluctant to draw any firm conclusions at this point, as there has been much good questioning about the methods - but I think it is fair to conclude from the results that the modular approach has proved more sucessful in terms of extracting greater finer detailing and a greater range of tones. That seems to be what most people have said, at least as far as this particular 'shootout' is concerned.

In terms of the competitive methods, well, yes, I have learned from this that we need to lay out some common editing parameters that will be applied by each side. Firstly, we need to agree in general terms what the prominent WB and colour tones will be, and also agree to apply specific adjustment types to different areas of the image - eg 'increase cloud detail - reduce sky noise, targeted NR in deep shadows, boost colour tones on highlights etc etc'.

With these aims set out at the beginning then everyone will have common factors to compare. Watch this Space!

After I installed the firmware update on my K7, there suddenly appears on the LCD after pushing the info button, a very nice 'attitude indicator' style horizon level indicator. Its a circle with a line through it that moves as you rotate the camera, and its far better and more accurate than the little dots you get in the viewfinder or on the top plate.

Another good feature of the Live View in Pentax.

It certainly does! I'd heard of it, and I have tried other freeware,but I have recently avoided free products as I tended to find them (in general) less coherant and organised in interface terms than paid for stuff - and of course the support and help info is usually minimal.

RawTherapee definately sounds the business though, and I'll give it a try. It sounds like a good candidate for another Great Photo Processing Shootout!!

Smeggy wrote : 'For geotagging in lightroom you import a gpx file and all pics within the time frame of the GPX file are tagged. Job done'

Oh wow - I might not get so many votes for this one

Thanks for the (always very useful) info on the workings of Lightroom. It is exactly this sort of knowledge that can help us all make good choices about what could work better for us. I was puzzled initially by the suggestion that Lightroom was continuing to work on the RAW for the complete editing process. I thought that would'nt be possible as each individual RAW file type would not be able to support and record every setting in Lightroom.

But you say that the program records its own settings independantly, then just reapplies them when reopening the file. I can see the benefit of this, although it makes it confusing to determine which adjustments are actually to RAW parameters directly and which are just photo edits.

I have been trying to sell the idea that if possible we should strive to make as many global & finer adjustments purely with the RAW data - that I see as an advantage of my aproach using PCU4 (being quite a sophisticated RAW conveter with the added benefit of Pentax specific parameters).

Lightroom is a different concept. I hope to be able to put it to a test very soon!

I very much agree and add my congrats onto everybody else's. Do you think you can get ASDA to stock some Pentax gear?

Thats in Lightroom, I'm guessing? I can understand that - as you all know I make no claims to any experience in Lightroom, and yes I'll give it a go soon.

But this is not the case for Photoshop or Elements users. Their approach, like mine, is essentially modular, just less individual modules. While they are using the ACR plugin then their changes are recorded as metadata and attached to the RAW file - if it were closed and reopened then those changes would be reapplied.

Once they click on Open (or Done I think?) then the RAW data is converted to an image-type and displayed, held in computer memory for further editing work. The RAW file has now been left behind completely, just to become an archive object. PS & Elements users next have to export (save as) and pick a file format to keep their edits permanent and saved to disc. This is all exactly the same as my approach. I just have more edit options in PCU4 at the RAW stage, which must be better for quality! (?)

By the way, did you see my new challenge above. I've have to find some other programs to do all that Geo-tagging and stuff you mentioned!

Wait a sec - there's no such thing as an 'original version'. There's a RAW file (which only David & I have) and two photos generated from that RAW file. The RAW file is just a collection of camera data (light levels, colour tones and textures that the sensor recorded) and a few camera set parameters attached to that data.

How much of any particular feature, such as colour cast, is nothing more than a personal choice of either person. The RAW is no more representative of the 'Original' scene than either processed version.

Come on everyone, only 44 votes? Keep em coming!!

Smeggy, you're an inspiration! You've just given me an idea for my next big challenge - 'Our Great Image Cataloging, Geo-tagging and Publishing Software Shootout!!' You up for it?

John, as you quoted, I said 'in ACR'. My claim was restricted to, and was about the RAW processing stage only - that is specifically the more limited controls available in ACR for saturation & vibrance control, which are applied globally through single sliders.

This stage is critical, because it is what is generated here that is exported out of the RAW converter and turned into an image file. You don't go back into RAW after this, so you're not going to get anything more out of the original.

In PCU4 we have in addition to WB fine tuners, a number of custom image parameter presets and saturation / hue controls, plus the Colour Fine Tune panel (a colour wheel with very sophisticated and fine control over each key colour area - similar to what is available in the full Silkypix). This additional fine control is all being applied to RAW data, and it is this aspect that I am highlighting as an advantage over what David had at his disposal.

Of course, once you get the image open in PS you have many further options, but then you do in many other editors as well. The level of seamless working together is not really a factor IMHO - there's really no difference in clicking on OPEN or DONE or SAVE in ACR as there is in clicking SAVE AS in PCU4, not in quality terms at least.

I used ACR with both Elements 8 and an earlier version of PS for 3 years before giving up with full PS (didn't need it) - I stick with PS Elements as it is still the most convenient means to do final cloning work or anything needing selections or layers (very little mostly I find), and the final save to JPEG and web reductions.