New K10D user - soft images (maybe)

Well, my K10D/18-55 lens finally arrived, "mint as new" it indeed is

I'm having trouble getting completely sharp images (OK I admit I am pixel peeping at 100% a little bit). Compared with a friend's EOS 30D (sorry!) images taken with a similarly priced Sigma lens, my K10 RAW images seem to lack "bite", (I am aware K10 JPEGS are not over sharp).

As far as I can work out this could be either:

Incorrect sharpening (using RAW converted with Raw Therapee) - could someone suggest any recommended settings for sharpening here or in PS Elements

Bad kit lens sample (only lens I have is the 18-55 so I can't try another.

Poor technique - I shot everything with SR on (my mistake), but mostly the shutter speeds were handholdable anyway (1/250 plus) - could SR have induced some "movement??

(Will try uploading a sample file at some point, don't have access to my files right now)

Thanks in advance....

the only way to compare like for like in this kind of situation is to start with RAW files from both cameras, preferably taken at the same time of the same subject from a tripod, and process them both the same way (eg with RawTherapee on defaults).

That way you eliminate all other possibilities, and if the images from the Canon still look sharper then you may have a problem with your Pentax.


Canon default settings tend to (IMO) oversharpen, and Canon users are often used to Canon default settings and also oversharpen.

A touch of processing can make a good composition into a great photograph, too much processing can make even a great composition into bin fodder.

It is possible that the lens is faulty or that the camera needs adjustment, but even with the best lenses, images from a K10D will never appear absolutely razor sharp when viewed at 100%, and it is not necessary for them to do so unless extreme-cropping or viewing a large print with your eyeballs right next to it.

I suggest trying to get used to the natural slight bit of softness (which is surely preferable to oversharpening), or turn up the sharpening setting of your RAW converter. Also eliminate possible AF problems by trying lots of manual focusing.

The 18-55 benefits from being stopped down to f8, by the way.

Have a look for threads about K10 focus being off to Front or Rear.

I'm not clear if you're shooting RAW and converting to JPEG or getting JPEG from the camera. the words suggest RAW plus conversion in which case download the trial Silkypix and see how that looks.

Incidentally I'm not sure I agree that 100% images won't look razor sharp. I think it depends on one's level of tolerance!

Does this seem sharp? Sigma 10-20 at 10mm and it's a 100% crop so pixel peeping.




I have to say the conversion to JPEG has done it no favours. And that is by no means the sharpest lens I posses.

I guess that isn't razor sharp but it's a darn sight sharper than 10x12 prints made from my film Leica some years ago.

Mike

I can see SOME softness in all that image, so I wouldn't call it absolutely razor sharp. But it is excellent and more than good enough for 100%, I think.

I meant razor sharp after a normal amount of sharpening, though of course it's debateable what "normal" means.

My wife has just told me that she feels that isn't razor sharp as well. But given the lens it is pretty sharp and I'm sure the 35mm F2 would have been far sharper. I'd be interested to know what the OP thinks - are his images much softer than that?

I did apply sharpening at RAW conversion stage and also when saving to JPEG although there was no resizing. So where does that get us?

It's always helpful to post an example. I think I'll dig out a 35 F2 example at 100% and see what you think.




35mm f2 100% crop 5.6 at 1/125th ISO 100 sharpened RAW to PS and a little to JPEG. It's a little debatable where the focus is on this one.

And I had SR on for the above shot and the Sigma one.


Mike

The "not razor sharp" thing is not meant as criticism. It's just natural that an image won't appear razor sharp when viewed at 100% unless quite a lot of sharpening has been applied.

Mike, your second image looks too good to be 100% crop, ie. a crop that is not resized.

Noooooooo!

Your all at it again with this 100% crop malarky, please stop saying 100% crop, it is NOT a 100% crop! You mean viewed at 100%, if you were to crop an image by 100% there would be no image left to look at

Mark; you really need to upload some examples and also give details of shutter speed and aperture used, lack of sharpness can be caused by several factors.

It may also help if you check this out;

link

"100% crop" is a popular and convenient phrase for it.

Anyway, do you think Mike's pic looks like an unresized crop (if you prefer that phrase)?

I think Mikes pic doesn't look anything like a 100% view. However I can believe that it is, it was shot on a K10D after all

here are some full uncropped photos for you to compare.
link
link
Both with the K10D and the D-FA 100mm macro and sharpened in photoshop using Matt's technique (different unsharpen masks on the three colours).

I believe that the pixel sharpness of the K10D is better then the K20D from the photos I've seen from that one, the K20D has some more pixels though so they don't need to be as sharp.

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by 100% crop then.

From camera RAW
To PS
Crop an small area to about 1024 x something or other
Save as JPEG

If I've done it wrong then apologies I can be quite dim sometimes.

The main reason I get less than clear images is camera shake (too old and the Sigma is a big lens) and wrong focus (respect to Mattmatic who suggested not letting the half press of the release activate AF and using teh AF button at the back which has helped me).

The 35mm F2 is a lovely lens. What it really excels at is the quality of the colour and what I can only describe as smoothness.

Stefan those are sharp shots and amply demonstrate that the K10D does deliver sharp. But I'm sure you sharpened from RAW to PS and then perhaps within PS using the unsharp mask and that's what you need to do to get the best from the equipment is it not?

Mike

Mike,

with 100% cropped is meant cropped at 100% view, so one pixel from the camera is one pixel of the photo you see.
the problem is that the naming isn't correct if you crop something for 50% you of course take away 50% from it so if you do a 100% crop you wouldn't have an image

The shots are opened and converted to DNG in lightroom it aplies 25% sharpening from his own I believe, the DNG goes straight from lightroom to Photoshop and only there it's converted to JPG.
It's on photozine... here it is Sharpen'o'Matic

Raw always needs sharpening since the information isn't worked at like it is with JPG, so you need to develop the information
The little sharpening from adobe camera raw is hardly noticable.
The nice thing is from matt's sharpening is that the highlights lights up it gives the photo more punch.

Your photos are also very sharp, is the last one really at 1:1 pixel ratio?

Thanks guys.....I think I am getting there......been playing with RT since posting....

I think several factors may be at play here.....

My images are pretty much as sharp as the Sigma 10-20 sample MikeW posted, but not as sharp as the 35mm f/2 sample (but then that's a "better" lens than the kit).

Viewing at 100% is showing up errors in my technique, as some images are very slightly sharper than others which I thought looked OK. I ned to use a tripod more.

I need to work (harder) on my RAW processing. - I'm used to processing (ahem!) Nikon D70 RAW files, DNGs need a different approach.

For the record, this is one of my first (resized/compressed) K10D images, processed from DNG:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53761336@N00/3360825222/

- Another couple on my Flickr if you're interested.

I should add I am very pleased with th K10D - will be even more so when I have got my RAW workflow sorted .....