[pentaxgirl86]

I'd say portraits are supposed to be a bit soft, I'm not sure you're suffering a whole lot. You can blow that up as large as you're likely to want to. I'd crop to 9:16 and get rid of as much tree as possible. Then if you want to take it to 18 inches wide or even 24 it should look great. Could it be sharper? Probably. Would it look better sharper? Probably not.

Thanks Norm, that makes me feel a little better. It is just frustrating when you feel like your equipment isn't doing what you want it to. I'd rather make a portrait softer in post then have it come that way out of camera.

With regards to a wide shot like this, the camera autofocus sensor will have difficulty judging what it should focus on, despite you choosing the focus point. Alternatively, the lens (or your entire camera) is normally backfocusing. If you are having this same issue consistently with the 50-200/55-300 where the DOF appears to be towards the rear of your subject, you might need a global AF adjustment (in the menus).

I primarily used my 50-200 for portraits and just recently purchased the 55-300 to replace it but experienced the same issue. I would take a full body portrait and it would be soft then standing in the same position without changing any settings, zoom in for a head shot and it would come out crisp and clear. If this is the case would a global AF adjustment potentially fix anything?

For a kit lens, is pretty much it. I don't think you had issues with motion blur or point of focus. Leafs are just as soft focused as the people. Leafs tend to look sharper because they have sharper edges than human face.

Is just the lens being softish... that's the nature of the "kitlens" beast.

But as normhead is mentioning, soft is good for portraits. Printed will look quite nice.

If you have the RAW version you can sharpen it by a wee bit and it will look better.
I also recommend to color correct it and this will improve the photo even more. Skin color seems a little off...

I do have the RAW image, I will see if I can make the skin tones better. Thanks!

My kit lens is quite sharp at F8 and above. But as we know, not all of them are the same. Some are sharp only at F11 and beyond.

From my research, I found that group photos like this one are best focused in live view, and using manual focus. On the K-x you can press the info button to zoom in, to confirm the focus and sharpness. I'm sure K-50 has this feature, along with face detection (same as on K-x, works great).

I abandoned using live view face detection after having so many select focus issues with it but perhaps it may work better in this situation.

[cali92rs]

I agree with the others...definitely turn off shake reduction on a tripod and use a 2 second timer. Also, use your live view magnification and manual focus (should be no problem with your willing subjects).

[ChristianRock]

Yup, it's back focused. We had the same problem a week ago when I took the K-r and 18-55 to our son's b-day party and we left it on all-auto so someone could take snaps of our family behind the birthday cake table. All shots were focused on the tree behind us and our faces were all a bit soft. Not a huge deal, like norm said. But I definitely won't be able to print large prints. I knew this might happen but with 3 small kids plus 15 others running frantically, there's no way to set up tripods, we had to ask someone to snap a few.

A few months ago, I also had the issue with the K20D and DA 35 2.4 when taking pictures of the wife and kids in a garden. I saw it and adjusted my settings.

Conclusion: with Pentax AF, you do have to chimp often to check what the AF system is doing. If possible, re-do the shot if you see that the AF system messed up. (and my boss' D3200 does the same thing so it's not a Pentax exclusive feature...)

[mike.hiran]

So first thing: if on a tripod and you will activate the shutter, turn off SR. Or use the timer and SR will turn off automatically.
Second: get the shutter speed up to about 1/150th and take multiple shots to increase the chances someone isn't blinking.
Third: do a focus test to see if your lens is back focusing. Adjust microfocus in the camera. Do this under natural light and artificial light - it should be the same, but just to be sure.
fourth: SR takes a bit to spool up - so if you're not on a tripod and you want SR to work as it should, half press and wait til the SR symbol in the viewfinder lights up. Shooting before it lights up will reduce sharpness. Takes about 1/4 to 1/2 a second to spool up.

I would have bunched people up more and put more people in the front row. The kids in the chair didn't need to be - give the chairs to adults in the front row. the group could have been about 4 feet less wide making for a more balanced shot.

On the positive side - lighting was good, location was well chosen. Chairs were a great idea. Lots of people made for a very wide shot, so f10 was a great idea. Distance from the center of the group to the people on the side probably a foot difference or more. Expressions seemed good, so good job posing them. Overall good job!

---

Last edited by mike.hiran; 09-30-2014 at 12:18 PM.

[pentaxgirl86]

So first thing: if on a tripod and you will activate the shutter, turn off SR. Or use the timer and SR will turn off automatically.
Second: get the shutter speed up to about 1/150th and take multiple shots to increase the chances someone isn't blinking.
Third: do a focus test to see if your lens is back focusing. Adjust microfocus in the camera. Do this under natural light and artificial light - it should be the same, but just to be sure.
fourth: SR takes a bit to spool up - so if you're not on a tripod and you want SR to work as it should, half press and wait til the SR symbol in the viewfinder lights up. Shooting before it lights up will reduce sharpness. Takes about 1/4 to 1/2 a second to spool up.

I would have bunched people up more and put more people in the front row. The kids in the chair didn't need to be - give the chairs to adults in the front row. the group could have been about 4 feet less wide making for a more balanced shot.

On the positive side - lighting was good, location was well chosen. Chairs were a great idea. Lots of people made for a very wide shot, so f10 was a great idea. Distance from the center of the group to the people on the side probably a foot difference or more. Expressions seemed good, so good job posing them. Overall good job!

We took a few different shots posed in different ways, some shots everyone was bunched closer together. I just used this as an example so everyone could see what I was talking about. I am not as seasoned as a lot of you so I am not sure how to adjust microfocus like you say, I guess I will have to do some reading about that. I have seen others talk about calibrating their lenses, I have no idea how to do that either

---------- Post added 09-30-14 at 02:36 PM ----------

Thank you everyone for all of the wonderful advice!! The next lens I upgrade will be my 18-55, I want to buy a k5iis also... Yes it never ends!!

[reeftool]

Looking at that image, I'd say it's just barely back focused. The branches and leaves in the back are sharp.

I would agree. Looking at the whole group, it's quite possible that the camera's AF focused on the leaves between 2 of the people. The focus point is a little bigger than that little red square. It would still be worthwhile to check the lens and make an adjustment if necessary. While not really bad, the kit lens is capable of better.

[mike.hiran]

I am not sure how to adjust microfocus like you say, I guess I will have to do some reading about that. I have seen others talk about calibrating their lenses, I have no idea how to do that either [COLOR="Silver"]

adjusting microfocus and calibrating lenses are the same. directions to do this will be on page 112 of the k50 owners manual. hope that helps!

[tuco]

At 37mm focal length, f10 and focusing from that far a way, you should an over kill in DOF needed for the shot. So you can rule that out. What remains then is camera shake, missed focus or soft lens, I suspect.

[Oldbayrunner]

I primarily used my 50-200 for portraits and just recently purchased the 55-300 to replace it but experienced the same issue. I would take a full body portrait and it would be soft then standing in the same position without changing any settings, zoom in for a head shot and it would come out crisp and clear. If this is the case would a global AF adjustment potentially fix anything?

To accurately test them you would need to use one or more of a few methods. Sr isn't a cure all for camera movement and you can also compensate for movement with your shutter speed by keeping it faster than the focal length of your lens or with Aps-c at least 1 1/2 times focal length. Also you need to take into consideration the longer the focal length of the lens the more it is affected by slight movement. As for zooming in for head shots etc. you will attain much better results by setting your focal length on a zoom lens and moving yourself the same as you would with using a prime lens. When you zoom you change the magnification, depth of field and the perspective of your subject matter.

[Funsize]

Personally, I think your bigger problem is white balance. Everything is very blue in that shot, and its jarring to go from foliage to people. I did a quick test with Pixelmator's color balance, adjusting the cyan/red +25%, and Yellow/Blue -30%, and the result was a much more natural looking shot. Of course, it will change depending on what program you use, but try to shift things away from blue towards red/yellow and I think you'll see huge improvements.

[timo]

This is cropped at 100% in photoshop

It focused on the trees. Not the camera's fault, and probably no need to adjust the focus calibration. Often happens with wide-angle shots where it's hard to control exactly where the focus point is going to end up.

[pentaxgirl86]

Personally, I think your bigger problem is white balance. Everything is very blue in that shot, and its jarring to go from foliage to people. I did a quick test with Pixelmator's color balance, adjusting the cyan/red +25%, and Yellow/Blue -30%, and the result was a much more natural looking shot. Of course, it will change depending on what program you use, but try to shift things away from blue towards red/yellow and I think you'll see huge improvements.

Thanks! I did do some additional warming for the shots, is there any other way to get a good white balance than using a gray card?

---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:55 AM ----------

To accurately test them you would need to use one or more of a few methods. Sr isn't a cure all for camera movement and you can also compensate for movement with your shutter speed by keeping it faster than the focal length of your lens or with Aps-c at least 1 1/2 times focal length. Also you need to take into consideration the longer the focal length of the lens the more it is affected by slight movement. As for zooming in for head shots etc. you will attain much better results by setting your focal length on a zoom lens and moving yourself the same as you would with using a prime lens. When you zoom you change the magnification, depth of field and the perspective of your subject matter.

I hope this doesn't sound stupid but I am confused. If zooming in, wouldn't I have to be more steady than taking a full body shot standing in the same position? I just don't understand why a head shot is sharper than a full body shot. Some people have told me I need to adjust to a smaller f-stop for full body portraits. I have yet to test that theory. Would I be better off standing much further away and taking a full body shot at say 150-200 mm as opposed to say 50mm? Although in most cases there just isn't the space for that.

[NicoleC]

Thanks! I did do some additional warming for the shots, is there any other way to get a good white balance than using a gray card?

A couple of those shoes look like they might be gray. If so, you can use them to set your white balance automatically and tweak as needed. Or if they are mostly white, use them as a reference point while you adjust.

[Oldbayrunner]

I hope this doesn't sound stupid but I am confused. If zooming in, wouldn't I have to be more steady than taking a full body shot standing in the same position? I just don't understand why a head shot is sharper than a full body shot. Some people have told me I need to adjust to a smaller f-stop for full body portraits. I have yet to test that theory. Would I be better off standing much further away and taking a full body shot at say 150-200 mm as opposed to say 50mm? Although in most cases there just isn't the space for that.

Zooming... No, but you would need to be more steady if your were using your 55-300mm super zoom at 300mm opposed to your 18-55mm if it weren't compensated adequately by the shutter speed.
Head shot.... it's not, that depends on the distance, your focal length and the aperture setting you use to control your depth of field.
Some people... That's true, the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field, however sometimes, such as in landscape photography, you need to focus on your hyperfocal distance to adequately get the distance sharp.
Full body shot.... not really, it's your aperture selection that would make the difference on how much was in focus. Using a longer focal length on a super telephoto is better for taking partial body shots where you want to blur out any distractions..

Granted kit lenses aren't as sharp as more expensive lenses but that doesn't mean you can't get decently sharp photos with them. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there must be something wrong with your lenses. It takes time learning them, along with your camera, and how to properly use them to get the most out of them. More often than not it is the person behind the camera & the lens than a problem with the lens, it's just that is is easier to blame the lens...

This is what I am talking about.

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

[pentaxgirl86]

Zooming... No, but you would need to be more steady if your were using your 55-300mm super zoom at 300mm opposed to your 18-55mm if it weren't compensated adequately by the shutter speed.
Head shot.... it's not, that depends on the distance, your focal length and the aperture setting you use to control your depth of field.
Some people... That's true, the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field.
Full body shot.... not really, it's your aperture selection that would make the difference on how much was in focus. Using a longer focal length on a super telephoto is better for taking partial body shots where you want to blur out any distractions..

These videos are great and I had never thought about doing it that way but it makes sense. I am aware that zooming in more gives you a more shallow DOF as well as bringing your background in closer. What I was referring to was the actual sharpness of the shot, nothing to do with the background. Perhaps that is part of the problem, a full body portrait shows more of the background and therefore your camera is more easily confused on what to focus on, back focusing for example. Both of these pictures were taken with my 55-300, one zoomed in as a head shot and the other as a full body shot, I cropped both at 100%. One is very sharp and the other is very soft.