[aslyfox]

. . . I'm sure like everybody says, it takes a lot of practice. . . .

if you are available and the coach allows it

try taking photos at practices

vary your approach

and see what happens

[robgski]

These are all shot wide open at 2.8 - except for the daytime one - it was at 3.2.

With the KP you can add some light in post and not lose image quality. I still suggest stopping down to something between f5.6 and f8, the DOF at f2.8 and 200mm is so thin that only a narrow band of the focal plane will be in focus. With moving objects especially far away, autofocus often defaults the focal plane to the object nearest the lens.

Even in the other photographer's image you can see that the sharpest objects are the nearest edge of the leg and shorts and the hand, and a bit of the arm and shirt. A deeper DOF would have been a better choice.

[schnur07]

Actually, now that I look at it in a larger image, it's not as sharp as it appeared of FB. It's definitely brighter. I also don't have a lot of experience with post processing - but that might help some. Any thoughts on jpegs vs RAW? I haven't dove in the RAW format yet. Seems like a lot of work to edit every photo.

[ehrwien]

If you are a professional you might want to take a less risky course of action, but as an amateur, you have license to go for a better quality of image.

I like that phrasing a lot. It's what I subconsciously do and why I probably could never do photography professionally (apart from my other shortcomings in photography of course )

Is there a way to upload them with the EXIF data?

You should look into the settings of the software you're using before uploading the pictures so that EXIF data does not get removed. Uploading here should conserve the data.

Single point focus using continuous mode and back button focus

Single point should work with subjects that large, but in the heat of the moment it can still be difficult to keep the point on a subject. For birds I switch to a little cluster of focus points instead, and for subjects like soccer players clearly separated from the background the camera should have no issues with choosing the "right" subject (unless there's someone else in the way in front of the subject).
How familiar are you with backbutton focus? I have heard over and over how great it is, and in theory I agree, but in practice I just struggle with it, so I focus "normally" with the shutter button and use the back button to disable the focus on the shutter while it is pressed. My point being, if you're not accustomed to using backbutton focus yet, this could have an impact on your photos.

trying to follow the ball and the players and having the photo framed and in focus is quite the struggle for me

What about putting the 24 megapixels of your KP to good use by zooming out a bit, just keeping the subjects in the center of the frame and worrying about the composition later by cropping away the parts that do not contribute? Again, I have only read about it, but knowing the game, anticipating situations, will help a lot as a photographer in sports. This player likes to shoot from afar and is just a bit out of range? Perhaps s/he'll be looking for the shot any second now? That player has scored a few headers already? Keep focussed on him/her on corners and freekicks.

The attached photo is from some other photographer who took photos at the game. Much sharper. I was going to send some of my photos to the coach until I saw this one and others on the team's facebook page. I'm not worthy...

Don't sell yourself short! The attached picture by the other photographer was clearly taken when the lights were on later, while you said yours were taken before the lights went on? Just the lighting difference between the lit field and the dark background makes this one pop a little bit more already.

[ehrwien]

Any thoughts on jpegs vs RAW? I haven't dove in the RAW format yet. Seems like a lot of work to edit every photo.

If you are satisfied with the look of the KP's photos otherwise, you could shoot RAW+JPEG, at the cost of a little loss of frames per second, slower buffer clearing and more space required to save the files. You could then just use the JPEGs of the pictures you like as they are while still having the opportunity to "get the most out of" others by converting the RAW files. It is a little more work, especially when you're not yet familiar with the process, but there are a ton of RAW converters and even a few free ones, you could try one or two (Darktable and RAWTherapee are two well regarded freewares) and see how you like them.

[Bob 256]

Again, your photos don't look that much less sharp than the comparison photo you provided. I'd try a little sharpening on your photos in post-processing and submit

Could edit those pictures to make some kind of mark on whatever it was you had focussed the camera on?

Next, please state the focal length for each, the ISO value, and the f/stop.

Have you "calibrated" the lens (i.e., used the autofocus fine-tuning feature of the camera to adjust the camera to the lens to make up for slight errors in manufacturing tolerances)?

If you have not gone through the autofocus fine-tuning procedure, my guess just from looking at the pictures you posted is that you need to do that before you can tell anything else. Obviously, some things are in sharp focus, so neither the camera nor the lens is failing in that. Offhand, it appears to be focusing behind the point of aim - in the fourth picture, mister yellow-shirt is more in focus than the white-togs kicking girl, which I assume was your point of aim.

See P. 63 of the KP instruction manual.

[DonV]

Wow, I didn't expect to get all this great feedback. Thanks everyone! I wasn't sure how best to upload photos. Is there a way to upload them with the EXIF data?

These are all shot wide open at 2.8 - except for the daytime one - it was at 3.2. And they are all at 200mm. Single point focus using continuous mode and back button focus. I shoot in TAv mode and try to shoot wide open for depth of field. But I could close it down a bit and still achieve decent DOF I guess - this would make up for my poor technique. I'll try a lower shutter speed as well.

I would love to shoot next to somebody who is experienced at shooting sports. I've been doing this for a while with both my daughters and still struggle trying to follow the ball and the players and having the photo framed and in focus is quite the struggle for me. I'm sure like everybody says, it takes a lot of practice.

The attached photo is from some other photographer who took photos at the game. Much sharper. I was going to send some of my photos to the coach until I saw this one and others on the team's facebook page. I'm not worthy...

I would say the second picture you posted is just as sharp/good as the one by the "other guy".

Use some/all of the suggestions above, get away from wide open and 1/1000 or higher shutter speed.

Then take 100 pictures and see if you don't get some that even you think are "good enough"! You have to take a LOT of pictures of sports to get the good ones.

[aslyfox]

this might be worth reading

Fixing Front and Back Focus
Introduction
With the advent of digital photography we have become much more critical about focus accuracy. We're now able to enlarge our photos to 100% size on our monitors and look at them pixel by pixel. Inaccuracies in focus and other flaws which no one noticed or cared about in the film era are now blatantly visible.

When we shot film and put that big enlargement up on the wall we understood that we would be looking at it from a distance, and the larger the print, the larger the viewing distance. Today, we sit close to our monitors and when an image is displayed at 100% zoom, we easily notice the many flaws introduced by our cameras and lenses.

Read more at: Fixing Front and Back Focus - Introduction - In-Depth Articles

do you have the E book

Pentax KP eBook
Lifetime download access to Yvon Bourque's comprehensive Pentax KP guidebook! (PDF) . . .

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/donations/

you will find it at the bottom of the donations page

[pschlute]

Lens seems sharp enough to me.

What is the problem is it is not focussing where you want it. Maybe look at AF/FA menu to resolve that one.

I cannot see the exif in the images so also you possibly need a narrower aperture.

[mikesbike]

I would say the second picture you posted is just as sharp/good as the one by the "other guy".

I agree. Your photos are actually pretty good overall. Of course, using a larger aperture, often wide open, is sometimes necessary because of the lighting and need for more shutter speed. This is a major reason for having and using a larger, more expensive, and heavier constant-aperture f/2.8 zoom lens. But this wider aperture will also reduce depth-of-field (DOF) so only a much smaller area of the scene will be in focus. First and foremost, practice makes more near perfect. I have shot college-level roller-hockey occasionally for numerous years. Very fast action, and it is hard to tell exactly when someone might shoot the puck. My second game was better than my first, and subsequent games came with more improvement.

My observations in your case are: You should not need such a fast shutter speed to freeze action. I normally used 1/500 or not much over, as fast as this sport is, and got eventually good enough so many shots with the puck flying showed detail in the puck itself, if it was located in the line of focus. Sometimes I would use a somewhat slower shutter speed (with good panning) so that certain aspects of the scene were rather blurred to show action (of a stick-swing, arms or legs) instead of a frozen scene. Also be aware that using AF-C will allow the shutter to fire even when focus has not been achieved, so some shots might be a bit off while the next might be right on. This is best used combined with burst shooting, knowing there will be several versions of essentially the same shot available. Learning good panning takes time and is essential. Try to get shots with the ball off the ground to better portray the action. Hang around near the goal area to get shots at the goal. Many prefer the back AF button, but for me it is faster to use the half-press constantly so when I need to be fast on the trigger for a shot, all I need to do is complete the shutter press to fire. For me, using both the front and rear for each shot takes a small fraction more time. Also, players coming at angles more towards or away from you are easier to deal with than when going across in front of you. It is really ok if the ball comes out blurred at times, showing movement of the ball.

Shooting JPEGs for such action works just fine. You can even do some adjustments, including sharpening with these if needed, but high-quality JPEGs out of the camera, especially with the KP, will not limit your sharpness. With experience and practice, you might turn out shots better than "the other guy".

[Des]

I'd just underline what others have said about the aperture. Shooting wide open or close to it with an f2.8 lens gives very little margin for missed focus. That's OK for static portraits, but with moving subjects you are making it very difficult for yourself. You will get the occasional sensational shot when focus is perfect and the subject is nicely isolated, but the percentage will be low. I'd trade 1.3 to 2 EV steps allocated between shutter speed and ISO to get somewhere between f6.3 and f8. The KP will still give good results at 1600 to 2000 ISO, even 3200 if the light is OK.

I'd agree with what Dan (@dlhawes) said about tuning the AF too. To me the four shots look slightly front-focused (look at the grass). Might be coincidence but might not.

As a wildlife shooter myself (and very occasional sport shooter), I think RAW is indispensable - so much more scope for fixing exposure, WB, clarity and microcontrast and getting a better result. The shooting speed won't be slower, just the buffer will be more limited.

I think your shots are quite acceptable. A few tweaks will get the results you are looking for.

[ramseybuckeye]

I'll agree with several others saying your shots aren't that bad, and that you don't need that high of a shutter speed. Soccer is not easy to shoot. It's a very free flowing game and action can easily be missed, don't expect to get every great play, you may get a great shot on any play. I'm guessing it is high school since they are playing on a filed also lined for football, and a lot of these venues are not lit well at all. The KP does help you a lot here with it's low light abilities. You can push that ISO and do well if you don't need to do heavy cropping. I personally would shoot in Tv mode, I think the camera does a good job of selecting aperture and ISO. Always take a few shots to test what type of shutter speed you can get. I've always been a center spot AF user, but I have been experimenting with multi point on flying birds and such, and getting results that are way better than I expected. It seems to me the continuous autofocus works better with 9 points. So do some trials. You shooting position can really help you too, of course you want to be as close to the field as you can, if you can get beyond the goal lines (and actually behind the goal) you can get some really nice viewpoints. I haven't got to shoot soccer for a while, but I always got ready for any set piece action, because it is more predictable than any other part of the sport. You have a ton of suggestions, try several, good luck, and enjoy the games.

[aslyfox]

. . . enjoy the games.

Remember. Your daughter is competing

Trying to get the perfect photo might prevent you from enjoying her skills

I suggest you might want to talk about that with her and decide what is more important getting all the photos you can or less photos more cheering

[normhead]

Wow, I didn't expect to get all this great feedback. Thanks everyone! I wasn't sure how best to upload photos. Is there a way to upload them with the EXIF data?

These are all shot wide open at 2.8 - except for the daytime one - it was at 3.2. And they are all at 200mm. Single point focus using continuous mode and back button focus. I shoot in TAv mode and try to shoot wide open for depth of field. But I could close it down a bit and still achieve decent DOF I guess - this would make up for my poor technique. I'll try a lower shutter speed as well.

I would love to shoot next to somebody who is experienced at shooting sports. I've been doing this for a while with both my daughters and still struggle trying to follow the ball and the players and having the photo framed and in focus is quite the struggle for me. I'm sure like everybody says, it takes a lot of practice.

The attached photo is from some other photographer who took photos at the game. Much sharper. I was going to send some of my photos to the coach until I saw this one and others on the team's facebook page. I'm not worthy...

He's simply increased the contrast either in camera or in post processing, and that makes it look sharper. Notice that his background is black. That makes the players stand out more, and but he's completely contrasted away any detail in the black uniform to emphasize the blue. H probably dropped to a knee to get the black sky, and it looks like he's on the sideline using a much shorter lens. You appear to be shooting from a higher angle, maybe up in the stands.There are lots fo things that can be going on. It'w hard to tell exactly which ones are giving you problems. But if you want the other guys shots, you're going to have to take more care of your back grounds and subject isolation. You second image is as good as his, but his is low angle image, limiting how much of the playing field is in the frame. His is from a low angle, my guess, lying down on the field, which has allowed him to isolate players against the sky. Your have too much field in the background. Where you are matters. Control what's in the frame.