This is interesting. This implies that Adobe must be provided with some data from Pentax to add to their Lens databases. Would this functioning be available for Pentax Lenses in ACR also?

And how is the lightroom database maintained - I mean, when Pentax (or Sigma as you mentioned also) release a new lens, do you have to wait for a new version of Lightroom to come out, or is there regular database updates you can download to the program regularly? I am aware that ACR updates also, but this is effectively a new version each time.

All true. I'm haven't been trying to compare features between the software - Lightroom has been designed as a one stop shop solution, whilst PCU4 is very much (as its creators like to describe it) a 'developer', that is it treats the original RAW as a negative to be processed into a workable form. I think the sticky by MattMatic was saying that it does this very well, in terms of output quality, and I too think this is the case.

So they're not the same kind of product - truely fair comparisons are probably futile!I have seen other users here taking a 'Pick the of the Best' kind of approach, doing different things with different software. I was wondering whether any single product could hope to be best in every individual area of photo processing?

But I've got an idea Why don't we try doing a 'Photo Processing Shootout!' One of us provides a RAW image (must be a Pentax PEF or DNG), and sends it to each other. Should be a good clear image with a wide range of tones and colours etc. One processes it in Lightroom, another in PCU4 (plus any other software needed) and we post them for a vote.

The editing should not aim to be a creative expression of the image, but rather just the highest quality rendering of the original that can be achieved in the program. ? How about it.

No No, I don't mean to confusing, really. (Maybe a little bit provocative, granted)

The VW / BMW thing was not actually an equating of VW with lightroom, sorry. I equated Lightroom as the VW / BMW choice, that is high quality, but a mainstream and popular choice! I was contrasting this choice with the 'Skoda' alternative, being Pentax, high quality but not so popular!

Maybe these matters now are best left for a German Car forum.

I actually am not doubting Lightrooms abilities. I was hoping to gain some insight into why Pentax shooters made their particular choices, and I am finding the responses here very interesting.

Ahhh, I knew I was heading towards shaky ground here, and you've got me Smeggy! - the dangers of playing devils advocate. I guess it would be almost impossible to demonstrate absolutely what two particular programs can achieve side by side, because you would need equal experience and knowledge of their workings. I think you could show certain areas where one shines more (say NR ).

I wasn't actually saying I knew Silkypix could be better then Lightroom - I meant in my experience of some other programs. The sticky by MattMatic sings the praises of it in output terms. As my post just before shows, I'm interested in whether the PCU version should be an essential part of any Pentax users arsenal.

I myself have come to the conclusion that I need a small number of programs that I know can perform well in certain photo processing / editing areas. I'm not sure if anyone could reasonably claim yet there is a perfect single solution ?

Specifically for Pentax shooters, one issue I'm curious about - (I know I can be accused of banging on about the same things in different places ), is it not important to use software that accesses the Pentax specific camera and lens features in order to get the most out of the Pentax specific files? I mean in particular the Custom Image settings and Lens Distortion & CA corrections. IN PCU 4, when using a DA lens there is an auto checkbox for the lens corrections, including a very useful 'Marginal luminance correction' ie: vignetting control (as in 'at the margins' (!). There are manual adjustments also, which are still available when using a manual lens.

The shadow corrections and highlight adjustments are very powerful in PCU4 as well. So my new multi-stage workflow begins with PCU, which works on the RAW in total (you can't use selections or layers). But you get a very smooth high quality output - in my view this is getting you the best that the Pentax camera can give you. Then you need something with more control over individual areas of the photo. And at the front end you need a data manager to view, sort, catalogue files and manage the workflow into other programs.

Do we not risk sacrificing some aspects of quality by using a single software solution for these all quite unique parts of photo processing?

I'm not a lightroom user, so I was genuinely interested in the perceived advantanges, so thanks for the above info. I understand that Adobe developed lightroom because Photoshop users previously had a rather convoluted workflow as they had to organise in 'Bridge', RAW convert using the ACR plug-in, then edit and export in Photoshop!

In fact, Lightroom is cheaper now than ever, so I suppose it will continue it ascendency. Personally, when I started with digital, I was very taken by a Database manager called iMatch link, which is very powerful. It doesn't use the 'keywords' principal at all, rather a tree-type categories system - very intuitive, but I guess it is really in the Skoda category of image management programs! But please, anyone looking for something, give it a go - highly recommended.

Regarding RAW Converting - interestingly, there is a sticky on this forum about Silkypix, (same processing engine as Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4) which claims that the output quality is the highest you can get, and in my own experience I would have to agree. That was why I was surprised that Lightroom was so favoured by Pentax users, and equated it as a sort of VW / BMW type of choice.

Maybe I've been worrying too much? I was aware obviously that repeated saving of JPEGs (which compress each time) would degrade the image data, but I was making the assumption that the compression of backup data would also incur some kind of degradation. But you're suggesting that it is actually restored 100% of the original with no changes at all?

Yes, I also do this, as it has the satisfaction value of being hands on and you see the results clearly and check the total number of files and total disk space afterwards. But there is no verification process available in windows (to compare the copies with the originals, which some backup software incorporates). But I admit, I do feel more at ease carrying out this manual operation myself

f16! - I stand corrected, and am amazed. Just goes to show how challenging this sort of macro work muct be - shutter speeds must be getting hairy, so good flash coverage is a must also.

Moving away from cars and back to photography again - if Pentax is supposedly the choice of those who lean towards the alternative, why then does it seem that so many Pentax owners also use Lightroom?

I don't think the DOF was that much? Its gone at the mouth area. Surely f11 or 16 would have pushed it a bit further back?

I am always in awe at photographers who can shoot these bugs pinsharp like that. Great stuff. the colours are very striking and natural. Obviously you used a macro lense with a very wide aperture. It looks like a flash shot,Is there any special flash used, like a ring-type?