How much image processing is too much?
Best of Pentax Forums Newsletter June 11, 2026
How much image processing is too much?
It took Ansel Adams a decade of processing and printing to turn his one frame of film into the Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico into the seminal image we all know. Adams wrote and taught that photography was like classical music: the negative — these days, the RAW file — is the score, and the print is the performance.
.jpg){kind=link}
But that’s Adams’ processing to meet Adams’ visualization. Now processing involves other people’s algorithms. So how far is too far? Photoshop’s remove background or background fill? Firefly? What about film simulations? Filters? How far is too far for you? Are you Straight Edge Straight Out Of The Camera? Or are all in on AI? Vote in this week’s poll, and let us know why you do what you do in the comments!
Elsewhere in this week’s newsletter, New Member Fluora takes the widest view of the Samyang 8mm F3.5 UMC Fish-eye CS II; New Member johaatsu reviews the Fuji Photo Film Co. (Fujinon) 55mm F1.8; and Loyal Site Supporter clickclick goes walking with his K-1 II and SMC F 17-28 fisheye.
If you’ve been forwarded this newsletter, please take a moment to join the almost 1,600 Pentaxians who have subscribed to our free curated compendium of the hundreds of great images and post shared each week in our Pentax community. Please let us know your thoughts here in the comments and on our Pentax Forums, and have a perfect Pentaxian week!
Threads of the Week:
June 7, 2026 • General Photography • 10 replies • 466 views
clickclick said — I didn’t set out to do this. It just kinda happened. As we head out on the near daily dog walk, I’m often scrambling around looking for the “right” combination of camera bodies and lenses for whatever seems to be in the back of my mind. Read more »
Need a better way to evaluate B/W film
June 5, 2026 • General Photography • 21 replies • 413 views
bletso said — OK, Some of the films I used long ago are no longer made. (I have recently come off a 20+ yrs photo hiatus). I need some suggestions on how to evaluate various films other than going to nature and just take shots or relying on someone’s report card… Read more »
June 8, 2026 • Welcomes and Introductions • 14 replies • 262 views
sciencegirl100 said — Greeting y’all I’m Liz, a transgender DC-based analog (mostly) photographer. It all started with a hand-me-down Spotmatic, damn that shutter is so satisfying! My collection has grown much from that, including non-pentax cameras. So far as of writing ...
Pentaxian User Reviews
Third-Party Pentax Lenses
Samyang 8mm F3.5 UMC Fish-eye CS II
Reviewed by New Member Fluora
Review Date: May 29, 2026 Recommended | Price: $300.00 | Rating: 10
Pros: Stereographic projection is something truly special
Cons: Designed for too low a price point
Sharpness: 8 Aberrations: 9 Bokeh: 8 Handling: 10 Value: 10 Camera Used: Pentax KP
I’m told Samyang’s fisheye lenses are essentially the only stereographic fisheyes out there, which is a bit of a shame, since in my opinion there’s no better projection for fisheye photography. This is a more than decent lens, but kind of a cheap one, and having had a taste of what it can do, I wish I could pay twice or three times as much for a better, sharper, faster version. I hear the stereographic projection is very difficult to achieve optically, though, so I’m just happy that this lens exists at all and is priced so affordably.
I would describe this lens’s sharpness as merely adequate, not terribly impressive, and maybe even mediocre when wide open. It’s definitely not terrible, but the temptation to pixel-peep is higher than ever with ultra-wide-angle lenses that make everything look tiny, and it definitely doesn’t measure up to high-end glass at wide apertures. This changes when stopped down, though; at f/5.6, it’s quite acceptable, and by f/8, perfect enough to make my camera’s pixels the limiting factor.
Don’t worry about the lack of autofocus on this lens - you won’t miss it. If you’re taking photos of subjects more than a couple meters away, you can pretty much just set the focus to the hyperfocal position and ignore it (especially if you’re shooting at f/8 or tighter, which you probably will be a lot of the time). When you’re shooting close up, adjusting the focus manually is easy and doesn’t take much precision to get it sharp. This is a rare type of lens where I feel like autofocus might even be counterproductive if it had it.
The special thing about the stereographic projection is that it preserves the shapes of small/distant subjects all the way out to the edges of the field of view. A sphere, for example, will still look perfectly circular in all parts of the frame, and will not be squashed into an oval even at the far edges. This particular lens is not perfectly stereographic, so in practice, you will see some such shape distortion, but the good news is that it can be corrected reasonably well in post - the lensfun profile for the mark I variant seems to work reasonably well (and is what I used in the example below). It’s definitely possible to use this lens to take photos that don’t look like fisheye photos at all, and even subjectively appear to have less distortion than a rectilinear lens would when shooting the same scene. I haven’t quite achieved this myself yet, but you can see examples in other people’s reviews here that have. I don’t have a lot of experience with fisheye photography in general, but I do feel like the photos I’ve taken with this lens have a much better sense of space and depth to them than many fisheye photos I’ve seen, and I like that. Fisheye photography sometimes makes me feel like I’m stuffing the world into a box too small to fit it, and a stereographic fisheye like this definitely eases some of that tension.
I would recommend this lens to anyone who is interested in fisheye photography in particular, or who is chasing the widest angle they can get and has started to reach the limits of rectilinear lenses.
Fuji Photo Film Co. (Fujinon) 55mm F1.8
Reviewed by New Member johaatsu
Review Date: June 10, 2026 Recommended | Price: None indicated | Rating: 9
Pros: Sharpness, fall-off, build quality, smoothness of operation
Cons: None without being silly
Sharpness: 9 Aberrations: 9 Bokeh: 9 Handling: 10 Value: 10 Camera Used: E-M1X and Fuji ST-701
‘Round Xmas I bought a bag of junk camera gear for not very much. Amongst the rubbish were a early 1959 Asahi Pentax S with the original Takumar 55mm f/1.8 (ooops) and a Fuijica ST701 with this Fujinon on it. The version i’ve got is the Type 1 full metal - no rubberized focusing ring (S#333274),but differs from what’s apparently the norm for these in having a black aperture ring. Because of the S and the Tak i kind of overlooked the Fuji thing, and it’s only in the last few weeks that i’ve bothered to try it out. What a great little lens - i’m so glad i’ve got it! I actually prefer it to my Super and S-M-C 55’s, although not to the Tak that came with the S which really does have its own thing going on. I don’t claim to have tried it in the full range of conditions and situations so i may come across problems down the line but, thus far, she’s a winner. Am i surprised? Very much so ‘coz old Fuji’s have never been on my radar... live and learn. Anyway - unhesitatingly recommend it to anyone and everyone whose standards are no higher than mine. Cheers.
Comment of the Week:
Pentaxian photoptimist Is Colorizing Moonrise a crime against photography? Best of PentaxForums June 4 Poll: To me, the interesting bit is in the acceptance/nonacceptance of new productive technologies in art.
To painters of the 19th and early 20th centuries, photography was the AI of its day. Photography was a labor-saving way of quickly making an image. Whereas painters actually created images brush-stroke-by-brush stroke, photographers "just" pointed and clicked. The technology (lens, camera, and film) created all the pixels/grains the image in an instant through an inhuman physical/chemical process. Yet photography did rise as an art form because photographers used the technology as a medium for expression. I suspect that AI will follow the same path with the rise of people skilled at training, prompting, and retraining the AI to make it a medium for expression.
And just as photography has a huge percentage of slop (e.g., most "snapshot" images), so, too, AI images will have a huge percentage of slop.
And just as photographers can create masterpieces, so, too, AI users will be able to create masterpieces.
How much image processing is too much?
The Best of Pentax Forums June 11 Poll
It took Ansel Adams a decade of processing and printing to turn his one frame of film into the Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico into the seminal image we all know. Adams wrote and taught that photography was like classical music: the negative — these days, the RAW file — is the score, and the print is the performance.
And what a performance! Legend has it that after spending a decade dodging and burning without getting the tonality he wanted Adams took that single frame and selenium toned it. This is consistent with Adam’s philosophy of visualization: seeing the final image before pressing the shutter, then processing until the print matches that visualization.
But that’s Adams’ processing to meet Adams’ visualization. Now processing involves other people’s algorithms. So how far is too far? Photoshop’s remove background or background fill? Firefly? What about film simulations? Filters?
Here’s how far this can go: Samsung smartphone AIs have been producing sharper and more detailed photos of the moon by…replacing users crappy images with someone else’s better shots.
How far is too far for you? Are you Straight Edge Straight Out Of The Camera? Are you filters and Spot Healing Brush and no further? Or are all in on AI? Vote in this week’s poll, and let us know why you do what you do in the comments!
This poll closes June 17.
And here's this week's PentaxForums YouTube video:
And here are the results of last week’s poll:
Weekly Photo Challenges
Project 52-14-23: Pin Hole, until 6-14 (Sunday)
A photo challenge centered on pinhole photography is a fantastic experiment for discovering the fundamentals of photography without expensive lenses and for creating unhurried, dreamy images with infinite depth of field. You can find instructions for building one online or in this preview post. Preview of Project 52-14-23 Pinhole photography - PentaxForums.com I'm looking forward to seeing many old and new participants in Project 52 and to see your pinhole pictures from around the world. Take your best shot, but most of all, have fun!
And here’s the entry from Senior Member zubzuadoodle: We are having a holiday, driving around Cornwall, so lots of landscapes to try. This is Porth Ledden. 2.5sec exposure. Porth Ledden
A Walk Down Memory Lane
Pentaxian Profile - Jeffry Scott
“Once a Pentaxian, Always a Pentaxian”
By PF Staff in Pentaxian Profiles on Sep 30, 2015
You may have heard the phrase “Once a Pentaxian, Always a Pentaxian.” In the case of Jeffry Scott— today’s featured photographer— it took extensive experience with four other camera systems for him to come to that realization. We hope you can relate to this story of soul-searching in the camera world. Enjoy!
PentaxForum Front page stories June 4-10:
The Making of “Chefchaouen Football Chase”
How the winning photo of the “Street” contest was made
By JoelA in Photo Contests on Jun 4, 2026
Many thanks to those of you who were kind enough to nominate and vote for this image. I have to say that I was honestly stunned to find out that the image made it into the finals, and much more so that it had been selected as the top choice.