[K2 to K50]

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.

It appears you have got the "depth of field" issue back to front - shooting as you have said "wide open for depth of field" at 2.8 or 3.2 (which IS wide open) will get you LESS depth of field. Hopefully you have noticed that most of the recommendations have suggested shooting at F6.3 up to even F8 is strongly recommended to get better depth of field, and you can (again, others here have pointed out) risk ISO from 1600 even up to 2000 or 2500 to allow stopping down to 6.3 to F8 and still have a decent shutter speed.

Another thing you mentioned which has me going is where you said you use "back-button" focus. Now, I am probably a little slower than others for judging focus (77 year old eyes!!!) and wouldn't dream of trying back-button focus for sports: I would rely on half-press of the shutter, continuous AF, and medium to high burst mode.

But then I have only tried a very small amount of sports shooting (rugby and basketball) of my grandson, so I am more than prepared for more experienced sports shooters here to "shoot" me down!!! But I did get a reasonable (for family consumption) series of shots recently (Pentax K3 iii, Pentax 150-450mm zoom lens, on a monopod (check the EXIF for shooting details).

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by K2 to K50; 09-05-2021 at 01:04 AM.

[JohnMc]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and ..

We're all entitled to our limbs. I think you missed the point of my post though, which was you can't dismiss film/sensor speed as a factor in image sharpness.

[Berserker]

Number of focus points can muddy the waters.
Are you in continuous mode?
Although hard to predict, you have to be quick, a technique I use is to focus on a part of the field that the play is approaching, sit there focused, then as the play approaches, fire away!
Areas in front of the net are a good place to concentrate on.
A throw from the side line usually gives you some time to see who will be the recipient of that throw. Concentrate there, when the ball enters, fire away.
I’ll get more keepers this way than trying to hunt the player.

[reh321]

I would suggest allowing for up to ISO 3200 in TAv and setting the lens to f4.

With the KP, I routinely work with an upper limit of 12K, or even 50K.
f/5.6 would be entirely reasonable.

[enxdtw]

It seems that you are missing the focus you want because of a 'busy' image, this is especially difficult in low light when using a wide aperture. The example image from the other photographer appears sharper because 1) the light is better (therefore the camera allows higher f-stop) 2) The subject is much better defined in the image (there is no other objects to create focusing ambiguity). Auto focus has a difficult job to perform, if you want to be sure you have the subject in focus, either take a burst of photos (one will be good) or monitor the AF point(s) making sure that your subject is selected.

[Fastback67]

If the lens is sharp when shooting stills, great, one possible issue removed from the list... if not, however, then you might want to start by calibrating your lens first.

[Jim909]

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 think you may have misunderstood. Shooting wide open restricts the depth of the focus, for example the eyes can be in focus while the tip of the nose and the ears will be blurry. Increasing the f-stop number reduces the aperture; as the size of the opening is reduced, the depth of field grows. At the extreme end, the aperture of a pinhole camera is so small that when in focus, the image appears sharp from close up all the way to infinity.
Generally, I shoot with aperture priority set at f9 and let the speed and ISO adjust. I use f9 because it provides maximum sharpness with all the lenses I use. I can open the aperture wider if the light is poor, I want to enhance bokeh, or otherwise manipulate softness in an image.

[SpecialK]

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.

It's not a lot of work. And every image will benefit.

[DonV]

It's not a lot of work. And every image will benefit.

I recognize that it is an opinion and matter of time and experience, but I find that processing "raw" images is a lot of "work" and takes a lot of time. JMHO

I'm sure many images could benefit in some way, but jpegs are someone's "interpretation" of raw processing; I find them quite suitable for nearly all the pictures I take- but for sure I'm doing this for fun
and a hobby and not for recognition or money.

[MikeMcE]

It's not a lot of work. And every image will benefit.

Totally true. If you really think it’s lots, shoot raw/jpeg. Now you’ve got the time savers, and can still really post process anything.

What most discover with good(not expensive) software is batch processing into jpeg. One or two clicks and it’s done.

Myself, I like stacking and toning so PP is always done. I convert and save as jpeg or tiff.


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Des]

It's not a lot of work. And every image will benefit.

I find that processing "raw" images is a lot of "work" and takes a lot of time.

I'm in the @SpecialK camp here - you can simplify the processing by developing your own preset, then applying it to a batch. This will always give better results than a jpg SOOC.

But Don has a point too. Once you start doing individual tweaking of images, doing 30 or 40 photos can take an hour or more.

I think the answer is to cull ruthlessly, batch process the survivors and work on perfecting the best handful for publication/sharing/printing or whatever. You can do all that in half an hour and get standout results.

[BobL]

Firstly, if you want the best results, start shooting in RAW. It gives you more latitude to play with the images after the event so that you can retrieve more information in the darks & lights. With Jpeg, what you see is pretty well what the camera gives you and obviously you want more. If you are unsure using RAW, shoot both jpeg & RAW and you will have a safety net.
Secondly, I know that someone said earlier that shooting at 1/1000-sec is over kill, but if your images are un-sharp then you obviously need to shoot faster. You say that you are shooting at 1250, is that 1/250th second, or 1/1250 second? if it's 1/250th, then go up to 1/500th at least. 1/1000 isn't going to hurt. Are you shooting hand held or tripod? maybe a monopod might help, just to add a little more stability.
Does the KP have IS? it's not a model I've ever used, I'm a K-1 & K-3 III shooter. If it does, use it, but not whilst on a tri or monopod, it's for hand held use & it will help with camera shake, meaning that you can shoot a little slower hand held. If it doesn't have IS, maybe it's time to upgrade to a second hand K3 or K3 II, there should be a few on the market with the new model now out. Image stabilization would be pretty essential for shooting sport & with 2 daughters playing soccer it sounds like you are going to be doing it for a while. Have you tried shooting on a high burst rate? and panning with the action?

An extra stop of ISO will help in giving you an extra stop in either shutter speed or aperture, it's up to you to decide where you want to use it, speed or DOF, but if you are shooting wide open at f2.8, f3.5 is really not going to add a lot. Maybe look at f5.6 and push the ISO up further.
Lighting seems ok, no issue with white balance. Remember grass is around middle grey as far as light values are concerned, so shooting in the middle of the light meter should give you what you need. BUT again, shooting in RAW is going to give you a whole lot more latitude to pull an image back. Hope this is of help.... good luck.

PS, just because I'm classified as a junior member by the forum, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing. I taught photography for over 30 years & am a master photographer..

[SpecialK]

It's not a lot of work. And every image will benefit.

I should expound a little. I shoot in P - with some judicial use of review and EV compensation. I am not a technician. I convert with PS Elements. I normally click "Auto adjust" on the first image for giggles, then move the 4 main sliders to my usual starting position. I may vary the exposure from time to time, and fix the shadows or highlights from time to time, and clone out things once in a while. And for most shots, level the horizon - a problem which turned out to be me. My goal is in-and-out in 15 seconds, preferably less. We all invest a lot of money, time and effort just to get a shot. I think a few seconds extra is well worth it.

[Jim909]

And for most shots, level the horizon -

Until I accumulated so much photographic proof, I would never have believed that the horizon actually sloped upward about 4 degrees from left to right!

[DonV]

Being a film only guy for many years, and thoroughly used to waiting for photos to come back from processing, and then the results are "what you took is what you get";
I must be brainwashed to believe that; "you get the picture you took".

With digital and no film cost at all, I take many more pictures and adjust in the camera while shooting; resulting in many discards but some nice shots I would have missed if only shooting a frame or two instead of 6 or 10.

I do crop, straighten, sharpen, or otherwise tweak "interesting" photos a bit in the jpeg form; and I'm sure processing from a raw file could improve them further - but I just don't seem to have
the inclination or time to process everything. I think I waste too much time on the computer already- and could be out seeking photographs !