k-5 images seem slightly soft

Smeggypants · 04-14-2011, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

Have you calibrated your lenses properly? If not, I suggest that you do so, and then test again.

Rob

What Rob said!

outsider · 04-14-2011, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

What Rob said!

Calibrate?! I don't believe there's a reason to calibrate. Things are focusing o.k., or so it seems, unless it's front or backfocusing by a couple milimeters, which is causing the "milky" appearance. The only calibration I know about is the focus adjustment, which the manual says there is no need to do unless there is a clear problem (dont mean to sound like a noob, but to put it simply).

outsider · 04-14-2011, 08:06 PM

Thanks for the info. guys. I'm pretty sure the issue is in the "Contrast Highlight" and "Contrast Adjustment" options in the custom image settings. These are "extra" settings not displayed that only appear when turning the front "wheel". The "contrast shadow" especially makes a very significant difference in that "milky" look when blown up to 100 percent. It's easy to think it may be mental, which some of it is, since you have preconceived ideas of what what to expect with a new camera, but this is not the case. I do "pixel peep", although that would be a poor choice for a description with a high standard when processing photos. This is really something that is especially noticeable around the eye area, which i've found is a reliable reference point to judge photo quality. Not as shimmering on the eye as the k-x photos, eyelashes had less luster. It seemed more a contrast issue than sharpness. The contrast "highlight" and "shadow" is presumably integrated into the K-x's contrast option, whereas the addtional contrast tweaks in the K-5 must be adjusted to get the same effect.

Rupert · 04-14-2011, 09:25 PM

I was told that I am required to post this......"Otis looks sharp even when the shooter fails to get a sharp shot of him, because he is sharp".

OK..... I did it. ]Regards!

skyoftexas · 04-14-2011, 09:43 PM

I think I can relate to what you may be seeing. I recently shot an event with my new K5, and when I looked at the raw images full screen in Bridge, I was dismayed by how many of them appeared to be soft, unfocused, and unusable. But I discovered when I processed the pics, they snapped into place. There is probably an explanation for this, but now I don't dismiss a photo because of softness until I have run it through post processing. I will also say this, the subtlety, dynamic range, and high ISO characteristics (say 1600) of the K5 images is changing my approach to post processing. I also think the white balance is more accurate (read cooler) than what I have been used to. The K5 is making me look at photographs differently. I think this is possibly a good thing, but I will have to confirm this later.

Michael

Harald · 04-14-2011, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

I think I can relate to what you may be seeing. I recently shot an event with my new K5, and when I looked at the raw images full screen in Bridge, I was dismayed by how many of them appeared to be soft, unfocused, and unusable. But I discovered when I processed the pics, they snapped into place. There is probably an explanation for this, but now I don't dismiss a photo because of softness until I have run it through post processing. I will also say this, the subtlety, dynamic range, and high ISO characteristics (say 1600) of the K5 images is changing my approach to post processing. I also think the white balance is more accurate (read cooler) than what I have been used to. The K5 is making me look at photographs differently. I think this is possibly a good thing, but I will have to confirm this later.

Michael

Do you know what you are looking when you have RAW file in screen?

You are looking at an small camera preprosessed jpeg which has been put in to the RAW file in the camera.

It is not the actual RAW file but an shadow of the content of it what you have on screen. Only after the conversion you have the "real" picture. Also if you open the RAW file in converter you can see the actual picture. All browsers shows only the small jpeg embedded into a RAW file.

If you judge picture quality using that tiny jpeg.... you can make severe mistakes.

jstevewhite · 04-15-2011, 12:00 AM

From the K-5 Manual (as someone mentioned down-thread already):

RAW: "Effects of White Balance, Custom Image and Color Space are not applied to the captured images, but they are saved as actual original information. When you perform the development process by using RAW Development function (p.271), or using the provided software (PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4) after transferring RAW data to a computer, you can create JPEG images with these effects."

Just to clarify, the settings you are talking about do not affect RAW files unless you convert them with the on-board "raw developer" or the Pentax Digital Camera Utility. If you're doing the former, you're not seeing a raw image on the computer. If the latter, they are being applied to the RAW image after you import them. If you're using LightRoom, Aperture, Capture One, etc, you're not really changing the image with those settings. If you're looking at the screen on the back of your camera, you're not seeing the RAW image.

I also have no issue with sharpness on my K-5.

Last edited by jstevewhite; 04-15-2011 at 12:00 AM. Reason: clarity:

outsider · 04-15-2011, 01:16 PM

"you can create JPEG images with these effects". WTF does this mean? Does the manual mean that the effects (custom) are applied automatically when the raw is converted? Or that it is possible to apply these effects in the program? I hate ambiguous manuals. I should have had this all worked out months ago.

outsider · 04-15-2011, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

From the K-5 Manual (as someone mentioned down-thread already):

RAW: "Effects of White Balance, Custom Image and Color Space are not applied to the captured images, but they are saved as actual original information. When you perform the development process by using RAW Development function (p.271), or using the provided software (PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4) after transferring RAW data to a computer, you can create JPEG images with these effects."

Just to clarify, the settings you are talking about do not affect RAW files unless you convert them with the on-board "raw developer" or the Pentax Digital Camera Utility. If you're doing the former, you're not seeing a raw image on the computer. If the latter, they are being applied to the RAW image after you import them. If you're using LightRoom, Aperture, Capture One, etc, you're not really changing the image with those settings. If you're looking at the screen on the back of your camera, you're not seeing the RAW image.

I also have no issue with sharpness on my K-5.

O.k., now I understand. This leaves the question of whether the applied effects data are applied using adobe photoshop and lightroom (when converting to jpeg). Should be some easy way to find out. Since these are such widely used programs. Also, I wonder if the quality of an image would be better if you shot in raw, then converted in camera or with the pentax program. Or just shot in jpeg straight.

**jbinpg** · 04-15-2011, 04:11 PM

This "raw vs jpeg" issue should be a sticky. Every newbie asks the same question. Best to do a targeted search on this site. You should come up with a bucketload of hits. My opinion: one day you will come back from a shoot and realize that you had set the EV comp to -4.0. Then you will realize the benefit of shooting raw on a K-5.

Jack

**Ash** · 04-15-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by outsider

"you can create JPEG images with these effects". WTF does this mean? Does the manual mean that the effects (custom) are applied automatically when the raw is converted? Or that it is possible to apply these effects in the program? I hate ambiguous manuals. I should have had this all worked out months ago.

All it means is that you can shoot JPEGs already manipulated by in-camera effects as stipulated. Or you can process your RAW images in-camera with those effects applied and get a JPEG out the other side saved as a separate file on your SD card.

It needn't be all that complicated. As long as you have adequate focusing (sure that focus is rendering sharp subjects) and you don't have any user factors introducing blur/image softness, then you should be getting sharp results.

Smeggypants · 04-15-2011, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by outsider

Calibrate?! I don't believe there's a reason to calibrate. Things are focusing o.k., or so it seems, unless it's front or backfocusing by a couple milimeters, which is causing the "milky" appearance. The only calibration I know about is the focus adjustment, which the manual says there is no need to do unless there is a clear problem (dont mean to sound like a noob, but to put it simply).

You claim the images seem soft. If that isn't a problem then probably no need to check the AF calibration for your lenses, but I would advise doing so anyway just to be sure.

Last year I bought a K10D as a 2nd body to my K20D. I thought it was soft. Then I discovered AF calibration and once I calibrated it the K20D was really sharp.

From then on I've checked AF calibration for all my lenses for all cameras.

**Ash** · 04-15-2011, 07:25 PM

On close inspection, my K-5 needed a global -7 AF fine adjustment to get focus spot on. I was still getting sharp images at the factory settings though - such an adjustment is critical for the very thin depth of field work or close focusing shots, but it does make a difference indeed.

robgo2 · 04-15-2011, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by outsider

Calibrate?! I don't believe there's a reason to calibrate. Things are focusing o.k., or so it seems, unless it's front or backfocusing by a couple milimeters, which is causing the "milky" appearance. The only calibration I know about is the focus adjustment, which the manual says there is no need to do unless there is a clear problem (dont mean to sound like a noob, but to put it simply).

I don't care what the manual says. Every lens should be calibrated, and that means using the autofocus adjustment tool and some sort of focusing chart or device. It is sometimes surprising how far back or front focused some lenses, even the best, are and how much sharper they are after proper adjustments. Trust me, just do it. Even if it turns out that your lenses are spot on, at least you will have established that fact.

Rob

Rupert · 04-15-2011, 09:49 PM

Not exactly on the same topic, but close enough.......Has anyone else noticed how much easier processing of Raw files is with the K5? There is just so much more room to maneuver and the end result you are looking for seems much faster and easier to obtain than my prior K20D or K10D.
When I have processed some of my model shots, they seem to flow like never before. Maybe I am dreaming...but I don't think so.
Regards!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images	jeffkpotter	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	64	04-22-2014 05:39 PM
Soft Images	pentaxkr	Pentax K-r	24	02-15-2011 01:55 AM
Question Soft Images	fractal	Site Suggestions and Help	2	07-13-2010 01:15 AM
K-x with soft images	harleynitelite	Pentax DSLR Discussion	60	01-12-2010 02:19 PM
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images	jeffkpotter	Post Your Photos!	22	04-23-2009 09:04 PM

04-14-2011, 05:04 PM	#16
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by robgo2 Have you calibrated your lenses properly? If not, I suggest that you do so, and then test again. Rob What Rob said!

04-14-2011, 06:27 PM	#17
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by Smeggypants What Rob said! Calibrate?! I don't believe there's a reason to calibrate. Things are focusing o.k., or so it seems, unless it's front or backfocusing by a couple milimeters, which is causing the "milky" appearance. The only calibration I know about is the focus adjustment, which the manual says there is no need to do unless there is a clear problem (dont mean to sound like a noob, but to put it simply).

04-14-2011, 08:06 PM	#18
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Thanks for the info. guys. I'm pretty sure the issue is in the "Contrast Highlight" and "Contrast Adjustment" options in the custom image settings. These are "extra" settings not displayed that only appear when turning the front "wheel". The "contrast shadow" especially makes a very significant difference in that "milky" look when blown up to 100 percent. It's easy to think it may be mental, which some of it is, since you have preconceived ideas of what what to expect with a new camera, but this is not the case. I do "pixel peep", although that would be a poor choice for a description with a high standard when processing photos. This is really something that is especially noticeable around the eye area, which i've found is a reliable reference point to judge photo quality. Not as shimmering on the eye as the k-x photos, eyelashes had less luster. It seemed more a contrast issue than sharpness. The contrast "highlight" and "shadow" is presumably integrated into the K-x's contrast option, whereas the addtional contrast tweaks in the K-5 must be adjusted to get the same effect.

04-14-2011, 09:25 PM	#19
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I was told that I am required to post this......"Otis looks sharp even when the shooter fails to get a sharp shot of him, because he is sharp". OK..... I did it. ]Regards!

04-14-2011, 09:43 PM	#20
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	I think I can relate to what you may be seeing. I recently shot an event with my new K5, and when I looked at the raw images full screen in Bridge, I was dismayed by how many of them appeared to be soft, unfocused, and unusable. But I discovered when I processed the pics, they snapped into place. There is probably an explanation for this, but now I don't dismiss a photo because of softness until I have run it through post processing. I will also say this, the subtlety, dynamic range, and high ISO characteristics (say 1600) of the K5 images is changing my approach to post processing. I also think the white balance is more accurate (read cooler) than what I have been used to. The K5 is making me look at photographs differently. I think this is possibly a good thing, but I will have to confirm this later. Michael

04-14-2011, 10:29 PM	#21
Harald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 259	Originally posted by skyoftexas I think I can relate to what you may be seeing. I recently shot an event with my new K5, and when I looked at the raw images full screen in Bridge, I was dismayed by how many of them appeared to be soft, unfocused, and unusable. But I discovered when I processed the pics, they snapped into place. There is probably an explanation for this, but now I don't dismiss a photo because of softness until I have run it through post processing. I will also say this, the subtlety, dynamic range, and high ISO characteristics (say 1600) of the K5 images is changing my approach to post processing. I also think the white balance is more accurate (read cooler) than what I have been used to. The K5 is making me look at photographs differently. I think this is possibly a good thing, but I will have to confirm this later. Michael Do you know what you are looking when you have RAW file in screen? You are looking at an small camera preprosessed jpeg which has been put in to the RAW file in the camera. It is not the actual RAW file but an shadow of the content of it what you have on screen. Only after the conversion you have the "real" picture. Also if you open the RAW file in converter you can see the actual picture. All browsers shows only the small jpeg embedded into a RAW file. If you judge picture quality using that tiny jpeg.... you can make severe mistakes.

04-15-2011, 12:00 AM	#22
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	From the K-5 Manual (as someone mentioned down-thread already): RAW: "Effects of White Balance, Custom Image and Color Space are not applied to the captured images, but they are saved as actual original information. When you perform the development process by using RAW Development function (p.271), or using the provided software (PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4) after transferring RAW data to a computer, you can create JPEG images with these effects." Just to clarify, the settings you are talking about do not affect RAW files unless you convert them with the on-board "raw developer" or the Pentax Digital Camera Utility. If you're doing the former, you're not seeing a raw image on the computer. If the latter, they are being applied to the RAW image after you import them. If you're using LightRoom, Aperture, Capture One, etc, you're not really changing the image with those settings. If you're looking at the screen on the back of your camera, you're not seeing the RAW image. I also have no issue with sharpness on my K-5. Last edited by jstevewhite; 04-15-2011 at 12:00 AM. Reason: clarity:

04-15-2011, 01:16 PM	#23
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	"you can create JPEG images with these effects". WTF does this mean? Does the manual mean that the effects (custom) are applied automatically when the raw is converted? Or that it is possible to apply these effects in the program? I hate ambiguous manuals. I should have had this all worked out months ago.

04-15-2011, 02:21 PM	#24
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by jstevewhite From the K-5 Manual (as someone mentioned down-thread already): RAW: "Effects of White Balance, Custom Image and Color Space are not applied to the captured images, but they are saved as actual original information. When you perform the development process by using RAW Development function (p.271), or using the provided software (PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4) after transferring RAW data to a computer, you can create JPEG images with these effects." Just to clarify, the settings you are talking about do not affect RAW files unless you convert them with the on-board "raw developer" or the Pentax Digital Camera Utility. If you're doing the former, you're not seeing a raw image on the computer. If the latter, they are being applied to the RAW image after you import them. If you're using LightRoom, Aperture, Capture One, etc, you're not really changing the image with those settings. If you're looking at the screen on the back of your camera, you're not seeing the RAW image. I also have no issue with sharpness on my K-5. O.k., now I understand. This leaves the question of whether the applied effects data are applied using adobe photoshop and lightroom (when converting to jpeg). Should be some easy way to find out. Since these are such widely used programs. Also, I wonder if the quality of an image would be better if you shot in raw, then converted in camera or with the pentax program. Or just shot in jpeg straight.

04-15-2011, 04:11 PM	#25
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	This "raw vs jpeg" issue should be a sticky. Every newbie asks the same question. Best to do a targeted search on this site. You should come up with a bucketload of hits. My opinion: one day you will come back from a shoot and realize that you had set the EV comp to -4.0. Then you will realize the benefit of shooting raw on a K-5. Jack

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-15-2011, 04:14 PM	#26
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by outsider "you can create JPEG images with these effects". WTF does this mean? Does the manual mean that the effects (custom) are applied automatically when the raw is converted? Or that it is possible to apply these effects in the program? I hate ambiguous manuals. I should have had this all worked out months ago. All it means is that you can shoot JPEGs already manipulated by in-camera effects as stipulated. Or you can process your RAW images in-camera with those effects applied and get a JPEG out the other side saved as a separate file on your SD card. It needn't be all that complicated. As long as you have adequate focusing (sure that focus is rendering sharp subjects) and you don't have any user factors introducing blur/image softness, then you should be getting sharp results.

04-15-2011, 05:56 PM	#27
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by outsider Calibrate?! I don't believe there's a reason to calibrate. Things are focusing o.k., or so it seems, unless it's front or backfocusing by a couple milimeters, which is causing the "milky" appearance. The only calibration I know about is the focus adjustment, which the manual says there is no need to do unless there is a clear problem (dont mean to sound like a noob, but to put it simply). You claim the images seem soft. If that isn't a problem then probably no need to check the AF calibration for your lenses, but I would advise doing so anyway just to be sure. Last year I bought a K10D as a 2nd body to my K20D. I thought it was soft. Then I discovered AF calibration and once I calibrated it the K20D was really sharp. From then on I've checked AF calibration for all my lenses for all cameras.

04-15-2011, 07:25 PM	#28
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	On close inspection, my K-5 needed a global -7 AF fine adjustment to get focus spot on. I was still getting sharp images at the factory settings though - such an adjustment is critical for the very thin depth of field work or close focusing shots, but it does make a difference indeed.

04-15-2011, 08:36 PM	#29
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by outsider Calibrate?! I don't believe there's a reason to calibrate. Things are focusing o.k., or so it seems, unless it's front or backfocusing by a couple milimeters, which is causing the "milky" appearance. The only calibration I know about is the focus adjustment, which the manual says there is no need to do unless there is a clear problem (dont mean to sound like a noob, but to put it simply). I don't care what the manual says. Every lens should be calibrated, and that means using the autofocus adjustment tool and some sort of focusing chart or device. It is sometimes surprising how far back or front focused some lenses, even the best, are and how much sharper they are after proper adjustments. Trust me, just do it. Even if it turns out that your lenses are spot on, at least you will have established that fact. Rob

04-15-2011, 09:49 PM	#30
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Not exactly on the same topic, but close enough.......Has anyone else noticed how much easier processing of Raw files is with the K5? There is just so much more room to maneuver and the end result you are looking for seems much faster and easier to obtain than my prior K20D or K10D. When I have processed some of my model shots, they seem to flow like never before. Maybe I am dreaming...but I don't think so. Regards!