I was reading the technical information of my K10D again. About the colour depth I read it is 3x 22 bits internal, and 3 x 12 bits output (in Raw).
What does this mean? Why is there a difference between the internal colour depth and the final output? Why don't we get Raw pics with a 22 bits colour depth, or at least with 16 bits colour depth?

Indeed, I have the same experience. My K10 is my fourth reflex camera, and it is the first time that regularly I notice the problem.

Silkypix does need a powerful machine. However, in use it is pretty quick because you can deal with pictures in batches, then do something else while it's processing them.

G[/quote]Indeed Silkypix needs a powerful machine. But the Pentax Laboratory doesn't need much power, so you can use that. It doesn't have as many options ls the real Silky but for most cases it will do.

I seem to remember reading that RAW processing in the supplied Pentax software (albeit silkypix driven) delivered similar results to that done in-camera, showing a tendency to softened edges etc and that Abode produced crisper detail - could be due to automated 25% sharpening (?) cant say as I've yet use a K10D

What's this article/mag you are looking at Myrdinn?[/quote]I have the impression that the RAW Photolab pics show more details and are sharper than the RAW pics developed with Adobe Camera Raw 3.7. Of course in Photolab you must do some sharpening.

The magazine is brand new (and a bit disappointing): Digifoto Pro Magazine. Website: digifotopro.nl

In the article they don't say what software they used. Maybe indeed Adobe works better with DNG than with PEF. I haven't tried it.

Anyway I agree that Silkypix gives better results than the Adobe stuff. Even Pentax Photolab, which is a limited version of Silkypix, produces pics with more details.

In the Dutch "Digifoto Magazine" I read that RAW pictures, made by the K10D, show a better quality than pictures made in the PEF-modus. In the article they don't tell why this should be the case, nor they give any more information.
Does anyone know whether this is right? Has anyone compared pics in RAW- and in PEF modus?

Very often the pics I make with my K10D, are a bit overexposed. (I always make pics in the tv-modus). As I know this I underexpose m pics half a stop, and then I finalize them with Pextax lab. That works fine.
I also have the impression that the WB has some influence. Very often the pics that are to blue, look better exposed than pics that are to red or yellow.

To develop your raw-files: the Pentax Photolab that you get with your camera, is easy to work with and gives pretty good results. To improve your 'developed photos' you can work with Photoshop Elements or with the 'real' Photoshop' (but that's expensive).
In that cace I think you better start with Photoshop version 9 (CS2). By developing raw-files you get the best results if you save them as 16 bits tif-files. Only Photoshop 9 or 10 can handle these files totally.

With IrfanView (which is free!) you can watch all the photos, raw-files included, as thumbnails. You can also create folders and arrange your pics as you wish.