K-5 (maybe K-7 too) and sharpness...

<p>Might I have missed something.....</p>

<p>I like "very" sharp pictures and with the K10 I just set the sharpness setting in a very high position and my DNG pictures where sharp and if I wanted them even sharper I set the sharpness even higher and they became sharper....</p>

<p>Now...with the K-5 (maybe K-7 too)...Doesn't this sharpness settings anylonger apply when shooting in RAW ???</p>

<p>In <em><strong>"Neocameras" </strong></em>K-5 test of sharpness in different settings of sharpness they write...<em><strong>"As usual, none of these settings apply to PEF or DNG files" </strong></em>Have Pentax done some changes in this department ???<em><strong><br /></strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em>Then this would explain a problem that have bothered me for a week with my new K-5.....It didn't matter how much I added sharpness in the settings the pictures didn't become any sharper...Does anyone know, If I shoot DNG files I actually have to add sharpness in PP instead ???</p>

<p>It would also explain why one JPEG picture was so sharp compared to my DNG pictures. I did the "Digital Preview" and the preview was good so I wanted to save it and pressed the "AE-L" button and for some reason that particular picture became a JPEG instead of a DNG and had a sharpness that was very much to my liking...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The sharpness setting just sets a flag in the DNG, it does not change the image data. Your software detects this sharpness flag and applies it at postprocessing. It's possible that the software you're using does not detect the setting on the K5 yet, or you have set a different override in your software.</p>

<p>If you're doing any post-processing, you should know that sharpness is the last step that needs to be applied. That's why I usually set it to lowest value in camera. Even if you just shoot JPG, you should keep it low, unless you actually post 14.6MP images.</p>

<p><strong>Trent... </strong></p>

<p>I'm using Elements 6 for PP....and I really hope that it's what you say... <em><strong>"software you're using does not detect the setting on the K5 yet" </strong></em>....but still, when I view pictures on camera screen they also looks unsharp and soft...too much in my view...and, I haven't done any new settings with the E6 what so ever since my change from K10 to K-5 nor before that.....Hopefully not a faulty sensor...</p>

<p><strong>Laurentiu....</strong></p>

<p>I have always applied sharpness in the beginning of my PP and have so far been satisfied with that but shall try your recommendation by doing it last......Still, don't think this will solve my problem with too unsharp and soft pictures<br>

My JPEG:s from the K10 are around 7 to 10Mp and when I send them over mail I always resize them with FastStone Photo Resizer and I have in general ahead of my sendings got the knowledge of the recipients screen size and resize them acordingly</p>

<p>Kari,</p>

<p>the K10D didn't store (at least I don't think it did) the JPEG settings in the DNG. Those settings were only for the JPEG and the JPEG preview. I'm basing this on the fact it didn't store any other data, like tone curve. Perhaps other Adobe programs read it, but Lightroom didn't (unless there is a setting I'm missing, and if there is please let me know as it would be nice to have in camera parameters stored and usable).</p>

<p>Also, I apply a 280-320 at .3 pixel radius with 0 threshold after converting my RAW to TIFF for final editing in photoshop. If the image is noisy, I still do this, but I use a different sharpening method that avoids the noisy areas by isolating channels. Essentially just accentuating the already defined areas without touching noisy ones. Most low ISO images will do fine with a basic 280-320 .3 0 setting.</p>

<p>I find it's helpful to "protect" the pixels before editing. This isn't designed to create print sharp images, as a matter of fact, it's only noticable at 100% magnification when toggling the setting. You'll still need to do a final sharpening for your print output size of choice.</p>

<p>Regardless, it is imperative you don't over sharpen at the beginning of editing which will lead to issues down the road, even my method is somewhat controversial, though it's worked fine for me for years, and I will continue to do it till it proves otherwise faulty or outdated</p>

<p>Also, how are you calibrating the K-5? The best method would be a focus chart, but alternative to that is using Live view to manual focus your quick shift lenses to optimal focus. Note the point of focus and then get the AF to calibrate to the same point. You will most likely need to calibrate EACH AND EVERY lens. Though if your system is working properly most of your lenses will be close to each other in calibration (at least my experience), I did find that some of my older zooms were in different areas.</p>

<p> </p>

Kari,

To build on prior comments, AFAIK, only the Pentax-supplied digital camera processing software will read all of your in-

camera settings and apply them to a RAW (DNG) image. In all other contexts, your in-camera settings for sharpness, tone,

white balance etc. solely apply to jpeg output from the camera.

 

 

Regarding order of sharpening in workflow, I prefer the three-stage model put forth by the late Bruce Fraser. 

 

A. Capture sharpening is lightly done initially. This seems close to what you do now. 

 

B. Creative sharpening which is what a lot of folks do to improve the image including spot sharpening with plugins. 

 

C. Output sharpening which is different for web and print delivery. 

 

Lightroom's workflow incorporates these stages. 

 

I highly recommend the revised edition of Fraser's book Real World Image Sharpening that Jeff Schewe modernized. 

 

 

ME

<blockquote>

<p>the K10D didn't store (at least I don't think it did) the JPEG settings in the DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does, but the software needs to know how to read that part and, besides, even if the software knows the settings, it will still not have available the Pentax processing algorithms to reproduce the camera result. The Pentax software always knew how to apply those settings and it is the only software that will replicate the camera processing (in fact it will replicate the newest camera processing, because it gets updated). AFAIK, no camera manufacturer makes their processing algorithms public, which is not really surprising.</p>

<p>I guess that is what I meant. More specifically I meant I didn't know of any software besides Pentax Camera Utility that used the data. I was fairly certain Adobe didn't!</p>

<p>So I stand officially corrected, it's in there, it's just useless and doesn't impact the DNG (or PEF) unless opened in Pentax software!</p>

<p>I actually found Pentax software would yield better results at times. Although the parameters were fewer, often I found the images seemed to look a little better, which could make sense, Pentax obviously knows how to get the most out of it's RAW files more than Adobe does. Of course working with dozens of images in Pentax software was a nightmare, and the parameters that one could adjust were slim, meaning a lot of post production had to go on using TIFF files.</p>

<p>Ultimately I ended up using RAW Shooter (aka. Lightroom once Adobe bought it) till I moved on to Lightroom.</p>

 

<p>Last night I used the Pentax Camera Utility software to convert some K-5 test RAWs for kicks. It was the first time I used this software since I purchased the *DS about 5-6 years ago. It has got to be the worst software for photography in the universe.<br>

Thank you. I feel better now.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It has got to be the worst software for photography in the universe.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! Which is funny because Silkypix is actually pretty damn good, and Pentax is based on the Silkypix engine but nothing else about it is Silkypix.</p>

<p>I haven't used Pentax software it since 2007 or 2008 I think, and even then I used camera RAW or RAW Shooter Premium a lot. RAW Shooter was nice software, so it makes sense Adobe scooped it up and "created" Lightroom!</p>

<p>I hate the Pentax software as well...I didn't realize silkypix was different...always thought it was crap because the pentax software was :-)<br>

Kari: one other thing may be that the K10D had a weak antialias filter. I could pixel peep images from it (even raw) and they looked fairly sharp. When I went to the K20D (same sensor as K7), the images looked fuzzy when I pixel peeped because they used a regular antialias filter and the sensor had more resolution so it was closer to the limit on your lens (e.g., the Sigma 17-70 was great on the K10D, but was only good on the K20D). You might be seeing this same effect from going to the K5.</p>

 

<p>I use the Pentax software all the time for RAW conversion and sometimes for changing the processing parameters. Compared to any RAW converter, it's clearly better. Yes, it does weird things at times and occasionally it can crash. But it got better over time - it's more reliable than at the time of the K10D. And then, of course, there are updates to it that you would have to install.</p>

<p><em><strong>Ken...</strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em>Might it be that I didn't totally correctly wrote in a for me foreign language what I really meant.....but when I read your text that you especially targeted to me I really think you "hit the nail" because I think that was probably the answer that I was looking for.....Yes, the pictures on my K10 screen looked sharp in DNG but with my K-5 the DNG pictures doesn't look even close to the same sharpness...and that is probably why I all the time thought that there is probably something wrong with my new K-5.............Thank You....</p>

<p>And also, Thank You to all others that have given me answers and guidence....where some answers took me to areas in PP that I have never been in before and never thought of....Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am with Laurentiu, I like the Pentax photo lab for RAW converting. It has just enough that I can process most of my shots with it. If I need more, I go to something more complex.</p>

<p>Kari, I hope it is working out for you!</p>

<p>An errata.</p>

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Compared to any RAW converter, it's clearly better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I meant to say:<br>

Compared to any <strong>free</strong> RAW converter, it's clearly better.</p>