You got it spot-on SetevJ!! That's what I think too.

DSLRs (or digital cameras in general) tends to easily blow away the highlights due to their narrower dynamic range than film, so i think the seemingly 'underexposed' shots is a compensation to prevent this from happening. But take note that there are enough details to work with during post-process. I noticed DSLRs is more capable of capturing details in the shadow areas than film. In a high-contrast situation, I meter more towards the highlights, and then post-process the shadows later without affecting the hghlight details. This can easily be achieved in PS.

Anyways, it is always part of my digital photgoraphy workflow to post-process the shots is PS. I love the feeling of having control over my pics during this stage, although not all of my shots require post-processing. The least I could do is color-correct the images.

Hi John U,

Greetings!!

I'm curious if this problem you encountered is consistent.. or could it just be the type of subjects you take (eg. bright backgrounds, something very relfective, etc...) that fools the camera's metering?

I don't know if I'm seeing the same thing as you.... I also own a *ist-D and one thing I noticed about DSLRs in general (I've used Nikon D100, Canon D30, 10D) is that the pics generally seems to appear "dimmer" or about half a stop underexposed compared to how you expect the same shots on film. My Canon/Nikon friends also say the same thing, so like me, they almost always post-process the shots in PS.

With flash, I didn't notice any underexposure, be it the built-in flash in P-TTL or with my AF500FTZ in TTL - with the exception of bounced mode. With the 500FTZ in bounce mode, I always get 1 or 2 stops underexposed.... and nobody has yet able to explain why. I went back to the shop to try another ist-D / 500FTZ units, and same thing happens, BUT NOT WITH THE AF360FGZ - this flash works great!!! even in bounce mode.

I am not sure if there was anything useful with my post
Anyway, I hope somebody else can address your problem with underexposure.


Cheers,

Shotgun

Welcome Julia!!!

Like you I was also delighted in finding this cool Pentax User site. You will find may ppl here are quite helpful and have some informative knowledge on pentax gear.

BTW, Congratulations on your new *ist-D.

If you can get a much wider angle lense, go get it. Don't forget your 28mm translates into about 44mm equivalent in your ist-D due to the focal length multiplier factor

If you don't already own a SMC 50mm f1.7 lens, I suggest you get it if you can. It's cheap yet it's a killer lense!! With the ist-D I use it more often now for portraits. It gives you unbeatable sharpness, contrast and very neutral/accurate colors.

Sorry, I'm getting too excited

Tomorrow I'll be taking my ist-D with me again on it's 2nd commercial application!! My client has been very pleased with my previous project using the *ist-D.

Cheers!!

Thanks Matt, maybe I could ask around if I can find this cable. I agree that less thatn 0.5m is quite short.

Hi Matt!!

First off, I've been away from the forum due to other more important tasks

Now on that CS-205 shutter release, how much did you get it for? I will be needing it soon. Currently I'm living up to using the 2-second self-timer with mirror lock on the appropraite situations.

Thanks!

Hi Rosanna,

I'm also using *ist-D and the biggest print I had so far is 15R (which is about 10" X 15") - that's about 150dpi and all I can say is that the results are really fantastic and virtually grain-free! It is one of my part-time commercial work and my client has been very pleased with the results compared to the ones I took with film printed at 8X12 which, by comparison, is very grainy.

That said, I am sure that a 16x20 should still provide a very good image quality albeit the lower dpi print resolution. I see a portrait sample at my local lab at 16x20 and the quality is stunning.

Cheers!!

Shotgun

Very well said Matt!!

That should clear up the confusion

Nice tips there gentlemen!!

Also, I find that different methods somehow works differently on the final output - whether for prints or screen/web display. And Matt is right. We must find the method that best suits the subject/texture and their "edginess" (if there's such a word ).

In most cases, I'm already happy with the standard Photoshop USM
.. although I play around with the USM values according to the image size and/or output. For screen display for instance (images not exceeding 1024 x 76, I tend to use 50-120%, 0.3-0.4, 2-4 .

If my image is intended for large prints (especially A4 or A3), I find radius of 0.5 to 0.8 works best. Again, this depends on the subject.

It all boils down to your final imaging needs.

But then again, to each his own.

I've been a 35mm film SLR user for about 6-7 years now and have been happy with prints up to 8R in size. The reason I jumped into the digital bandwagon is that I have proven that a 6MP DSLR has sufficed my personnal applications as well those 'comercial' ones. It can stand on it's own against a 35mm film. I also find it to be of less in shooting costs in the long run.

Furthermore, I have also been a Computer Graphics enthusiast for quite some time now (3D Studio MAX, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) and I learned by heart the pros and cons of digital imaging as well as its beauty.


Cheers.

ShotGun

Hi everyone.

Took a day's-off from work yesterday, as my client called me up to photograph their new product. It's the first time I shoot their products in pure digital (although I brought along my MZ-S as backup), and it's the first commercial application my *ist-D is put to use. BTW, these prosucts are huge electrical panels, Interface terminals, Switch Boards, Pneomatic fire control systems, etc.. (if you know BOUSTEAD Controls & Electrics).

All I can say is, everything went smoothly, and I was very pleased with my shots and the camera's performace. It's a new feeling of getting immediate gratitude. I used one of their PCs to download my shots to my portable USB harddrive backup, and at the same time, confirm my shots on-site on a 21-inch monitor.

I wanted to show you some of the pics, but on agreement, I am not allowed to publicize the images in any way. (sorry about that).

I hope the company's website is updated to include galleries of these equipments.

Cheers!!


Shotgun