More K-5 impressions....

[m3photo]

Re: Pentax Reds

As for the white balance, I normally force set my white balance in daylight. But think about this- if it was a white balance issue why are the colors *except those* spot on? That doesn't make sense.

So I am already shooting with daylight white balance. I have tried both already.

PS: Try a red car outside. Metal. Not on an overcast day but on a sunny day.

OK, I think this is general "Pentax Red" we're seeing here not just the K5's fault.
I'll explain.
I do a lot of aerial work and chose the Pentax K20D for this after having a K10D for personal stuff after seeing and liking their colour palette versus the offerings from Canon (which is what I was using up 'till then). The other main reason for choosing a Pentax body was their excellent TaV mode which for helicopter work is a must.
Anyway, back to the reds: For this type of work I need to shoot High Quality Jpegs and I set the White Balance to Daylight, in nearly all my shots I include roof tiles and that is where I have found that the magentas/cyans in their reds are wrong and have to tweak them in the post-processing stage.
So in a nutshell - it's not only on metals and certainly not a K5 quirk.

 

[Paratom]

pinkish reds could also be a problem of a blown out red channel. I had this problem often with the dp1.

 

[raist3d]

Yes, and also could be how the RAW data is interpreted, or written after some processing/scaling, etc.

With Panasonic it seems it's their JPEG engine, as the same RAW with other programs shows it fine.

I am not inclined to think at all it's the Pentax sensor, but how the data is being interpreted or written.

 

[raist3d]

Allright, one of the shots I like from tonight (cropped/ from DNG)

- Raist

 

[photogerald]

pinkish reds could also be a problem of a blown out red channel. I had this problem often with the dp1.

I was thinking that too. Also, what I found interesting in the dpreview's review of the K-5 was that they recommended enabling the highlight correction feature (which gives about 1 extra stop of overhead in the highlights) as the expense in shadow noise was not apparent (like it is in previous Pentax cameras) due to the low amount of shadow noise to begin with. This is actually a software trick, as what they're effectively doing is underexposing by 1 stop (the minimum ISO becomes 160) and then readjusting the curves so the overall brightness looks right. Of course you can achieve the same results by shooting RAW with -1EV and doign the adjustment in PP but the benefit to JPG shooters is that you get this out-of-camera.

Anyways, I wonder if enabling highlight correction would reduce the occurance of the pink/magenta reds.

 

[mediumcool]

Has anyone tried shooting with and without a UV filter?

Looks to me as if highlights/reflective areas are going pink whereas matter (more matte?) areas stay red.

Just a thought ...

 

[jonoslack]

I was thinking that too. Also, what I found interesting in the dpreview's review of the K-5 was that they recommended enabling the highlight correction feature (which gives about 1 extra stop of overhead in the highlights) as the expense in shadow noise was not apparent (like it is in previous Pentax cameras) due to the low amount of shadow noise to begin with. This is actually a software trick, as what they're effectively doing is underexposing by 1 stop (the minimum ISO becomes 160) and then readjusting the curves so the overall brightness looks right. Of course you can achieve the same results by shooting RAW with -1EV and doign the adjustment in PP but the benefit to JPG shooters is that you get this out-of-camera.

Anyways, I wonder if enabling highlight correction would reduce the occurance of the pink/magenta reds.

I wonder about that - I've not seen much of a problem, but I'm always very careful not to over-expose (I dislike blown highlights much more than noise).

 

[mediumcool]

... I can care less ...

It’s *Couldn’t care less*

Think about it for a moment to catch the illogicality.

 

[raist3d]

That's just a simple mistake. I think everyone knows what I meant.

- Raist

 

[jonoslack]

That's just a simple mistake. I think everyone knows what I meant.

- Raist

Hi Ricardo
Actually . .. isn't it cultural, and anyway, I'm not sure that it doesn't work both ways.
I've certainly seen lots of people from your side of the pond saying "I could care less", whereas it's definitely "I couldn't care less" here.

I think you should stick to your guns (even if they are wrong :ROTFL

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hi Ricardo
Actually . .. isn't it cultural, and anyway, I'm not sure that it doesn't work both ways.
I've certainly seen lots of people from your side of the pond saying "I could care less", whereas it's definitely "I couldn't care less" here.

I think you should stick to your guns (even if they are wrong :ROTFL

I believe you are right, Jono. It's kind of correct in American English; opposite formulations, same meaning. One could obviously claim that American English is incorrect by nature, which would explain this rather strange way of expressing oneself, but I'll leave that discussion to those of you who are born into the rather untidy world of English language

Why on earth can't everybody speak Norwegian? It's such a friendly language

 

[jonoslack]

Why on earth can't everybody speak Norwegian? It's such a friendly language

Oh! I thought that Finnish was the good one in Scandinavia?

 

[mediumcool]

The phrase couldn’t care less is widely accepted as originating in England (as the title of a book by Anthony Phelps, recording his experiences in Air Transport Auxiliary during World War II) and seems to have first appeared in print in the US as the inverted I could care less in 1960*; it has been variously described as dumb, wrong and loathsome since.

Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage 1975 called it: an ignorant debasement of language.

*Ann Landers’ column on October 20, 1960:

DEAR TOENAIL: The expression as I understand it is “I couldn’t care less” which means I don’t care at all. On the other hand, maybe she COULD care less, which means she does care at least a little.

*I could care less* can only work if it is posed as a question, posed ironically in the Yiddish style (I should be so lucky?)

 

[mediumcool]

So nobody has tried the A/B UV- or not UV-filter test yet?

That is the question.

 

[Diane B]

But it is used most of the time,as the OP said, in the US and it seems after a period of time that a phrase or word has been in general use it is accepted here regardless of origination. %>}. We are a bit strange with 'Merican English LOL You should see the 'new' words and phrases that they are listing this year as being acceptable because of general usage.

 

[mediumcool]

Oh! I thought that Finnish was the good one in Scandinavia?

Finland was part of the Axis during the “Second Great Unpleasantness”.*

___________________________________________________________
*Which photographic magazine editor and publisher used this phrase?

 

[mediumcool]

But it is used most of the time,as the OP said, in the US and it seems after a period of time that a phrase or word has been in general use it is accepted here regardless of origination. %>}. We are a bit strange with 'Merican English LOL You should see the 'new' words and phrases that they are listing this year as being acceptable because of general usage.

Having noted that, there are more cockroaches than humans on this planet; does this mean that cockies are a better, preferable, or superior life form?

Quantity is not always to be preferred over quality.



Particularly on this forum ...

 

[Terry]

I gather the post with the initial "mistake" was removed.
Before venturing too far off topic on this thread, please note that there are a lot of posters on this forum that while they post in English, it is not their first or even second language.

 

[Diane B]

Yes, and usage is often quite different. The one thing that I always find interesting about this is how languages evolve. They are not static.

 

[photoSmart42]

Wow, I can't believe this thread has gone from an interesting review of the K-5 to a quite inane diatribe into the finer points of an expression that is by no means fixed in stone, and could easily work either way, particularly, as Diane and Terry pointed out, on a forum that sees members from all walks of life and continents. Let's please return to the discussion on the K-5, yes? I can definitely care less about discussing language in this thread, eh?