I think its important to distinguish two seperate rolls in post produciton:

On the one hand, we need to be able to fix our mistakes. A better lens, and more importantly, propper technique will go a long way toward making images better. Its better to capture a sharper picture than to add sharpness to a picture in post. Same goes for exposure, white-balance, etc. The better your lens the less likely you will have to make these adjustments. Image to noisy? You have two options Drop your ISO and increase your aperture, or apply noise removal in post (or option three which is save up a few grand, go buy a full frame, and reshoot :) ). Obviously, the better solution is to re-shoot provided that is an option.

The other thing you do in post production is stylize your shot. None of our digital cameras shoot black and white natively (You film guys feel free to act smug on this one). Doing this in post production is our only option (no the black and white mode in your D40 doesn't count). You can't always get the look your going for out of camera without doing a little work in post.

Is photoshop worth the $600 so that you can fix your mistakes? No... there are lots of alternatives that cost less and are easier to use. Is it worth the $600 to complete your vision for the final shot? Your call. Its the industry standard, so if you want the most access to all the amazing tools out there, than its probably your best bet.

Amen Technologic!

I can't believe no one has said "Garbage in, Garbage out"

Nothing speaks the truth more. Photoshop or any program for that matter is a tool to finish the photo. Not make it.

"You're absolutely right guys. I never touched Photoshop, but I've had times when the colors on my photos are just a touch off, and it would be awesome if I could just alter it a smidge."

Why I agree with adamz in the sense that I try to get it right the first time. There is always something that can be done in PP. I prefer Capture NX to the others as it's easier to use and seems to know almost intuitively how to adjust properly.

You're absolutely right guys. I never touched Photoshop, but I've had times when the colors on my photos are just a touch off, and it would be awesome if I could just alter it a smidge.

I have always been the improve-my-photography-as-much-as-possible-to-avoid-photoshop kinda guy, but I realize that can only get me so far.

"Good glass is still needed but PP is always useful" - I would say even more, good PP skill is this what makes a good photography spectacular, although I prefer using Aperture or Lightroom over Photoshop, as IMHO once You start using Photoshop sooner or later You gonna start cheating as the manipulation and control of the image is too tempting

"Now…I’m going out on a limb here and say that photo manipulation in Photoshop, i.e. any post processing program, is equivalent to manipulation in the darkroom"

It's good to hear this from a former film guy. This is exactly what PP digital shots is like. Taking the picture in a DSLR is only the first step. Good glass is still needed but PP is always useful.

I think both are equally important.

Given the fact that Ansel Adams, I don’t believe, ever made a print “straight” from his negatives. They were manipulated in the darkroom. He had “cheat sheets” that told him what dodging and burning was required each time he made a print.

Now…I’m going out on a limb here and say that photo manipulation in Photoshop, i.e. any post processing program, is equivalent to manipulation in the darkroom, just a hell of a lot easier and more versatile.

I speak from experience on this because before I retired, I owned and operated a business called Custom Monochrome. We specialized in B&W processing and printing for pro photographers. We operated it from 1985 till digital became good enough for pros to abandon their film for pixels.

I have no ill feelings toward digital, just the opposite. It has created a whole new cottage industry, and made good photography available to those who otherwise would not have ventured into the art. Not too many people today, would be willing to stay in the darkroom, slosh film and paper around in chemistry. I had 10’s of thousands of dollars invested in enlarging and processing equipment. And…I still have it. Anyone want to buy a $12,000.00 Ilford 20 inch paper processor? :)

The only thing I regret, going digital, is that I have never been to duplicate the grain structure of Tri-X, shot at ASA 400, processed for 15 minutes in a 1:50 dilution of Agfa Rodinal. I'm still working on that.

I might have missed it but I think one of the big reasons why an expensive lens can outperform PS is just the aperture possibilities. You either get more light into your camera or you can have less DOF in your photos. The first one you cannot correct in PS, at least you're always one step ahead. Increasing the brightness of shadows is something you can always do so starting from what comes out of the camera you can never catch up. The second is possible in PS but I guess you can do it once or twice before you run out of time blurring the background, that really is quite a task!

Oh yeah, monty11 rules, sharp and accurate as ever.

good post monty! - couldn't agree more

As some mentioned here image sharpness is affected not only by the lens but also a sensor and filters inside the lens (low pass in particularly), but never the less you need good lens to pull out maximum from a camera.
There is a paradox in that story, DX sensor, being smaller, actually requires sharper and better lens then FX, or at least as sharp in D90 and D3x case, to give their maximum.

"The people with learned hearing can tell you from what they are hearing whether the source is mp3, CD, vinyl or DVD-" I can do this to a point. I know an mp3 when I hear one and especially the differences in bit rates. Vinyl records sounds nothing like a CD by the way.

"I suggest you save this thread and read it again in several years. Trust me, your opinion will be changed as then your eye will see things a lot differently. Maybe you still won't see the justification in paying $2000 for a lens, but maybe you will"

I can attest to this! You are dead on with this. Like I said before, I can now see the differences of what Photoshop does compared to Capture NX. So the glass matters but I also think the software used for PP matters a lot as well. AND, shooting in RAW also makes a difference as adjustments made to RAW files are not destructive and the final jpg that you save is a first generation jpg.

Heartyfisher - That's a good point. Of course I said my D40, not my D90. I will say that on my D90, the 24-70 is obviously sharper than the 18-200 it replaced, but of course the 18-200 has some known sharpness issues, and the comparison isn't really fair.

Nau - I have to confess that every time I go to a wedding, I'm always trying to get a look at what gear the photograper is shooting (yeah, I'm that guy). So you do get some style points for having the good stuff, but it only comes from dorks like me.

nikonian: mercedes vs toyota - bad example : ) when you buying Mercedes you buying your status as well, with lens pretty much no one really pays attention what da hell are you using untill they see shots that they like : )

More people should base their purchasing decisions on necessity (the need-to-have kind, not nice-to-have) not because it is "cool" or "because I can't be worse than my neighbour".

monty, you said it very well indeed. I actually think buying a lens is like BUYING A CAR. mercedes vs toyota?

toyota's body is soft and mercedes is so solid. and i dont even understand why pay more for mercedes besides it LOOKS better? hahahhahaa.

i think the same thing applies for lens. for average joe like me, i will think twice before i drop money on expensive lens like 24-70 or 70-200.

Thinking about this thread brought back a thought from a photo trip. I'm pretty sure it has been said before by loads of people and maybe even I had heard it somewhere but didn't just remember it.

In a sense looking at a photograph is like listening to music, for argument's sake, let's take classical music. I'm sure many of you have people with learned hearing in your family or among your acquaintances. I'm not one of those, but I know some. The people with learned hearing can tell you from what they are hearing whether the source is mp3, CD, vinyl or DVD-audio and they can distinguish the separate instruments in the orchestra. Most probably they will have a hard time settling for low quality. Now ordinary people don't have a problem listening to a 128kbps web radio station and we can even enjoy it. Of course the ordinary John Doe can tell the difference between a 128kbps, CD and vinyl (well maybe everyone can't tell the difference between the latter two) when they are played one after the other, but not when they hear just one. Well the people with good mastered musical hearing can.

Now this analogy can be equated with photography. For ordinary people a lot of photos have the WOW effect, they won't spot the flaws, lack/excess of sharpness, colours, etc. Some will be able to identify the better picture when two photos of different quality are placed side-by-side but not separately. When someone who has a lot of experience in photography looks at a photo, they will notice a lot more.

Coming to the original issue of PS vs pro glass, it can be brought down to the points above. You don't see the difference or the point in selecting pro glass over PS as for you the results of either look the same i.e. compared to a pro photographer, your eye is not that trained and hence your standards for image quality are lower. If your heart is set on photography and seriously so, then I suggest you save this thread and read it again in several years. Trust me, your opinion will be changed as then your eye will see things a lot differently. Maybe you still won't see the justification in paying $2000 for a lens, but maybe you will. Bear in mind that there are people who will pay $30,000 for a Hasselblad camera because they value quality so dearly. Remember that Hasselblad "kit lenses" start at $6000.

Basically this long rant boils down to your own standards. There is no universal right or wrong in this subject.

@NSXType-R, I've seen you stress that you don't use PS at all several times, is there a reason for it?

@ mb : There are a couple more factors in "sharpness" (that I can think of at the moment .. there may be more ?) both are related to the sensor.
3) The sensor resolution or pixel density. ie the number of pixels per milimeter
4) The anti aliasing filter on the sensor that "blurs" the image so that we dont get the "Jaggies" as much.

These result in a limit in the value of a super sharp lens as after a certain amount of resolving power of the lens it does not matter how sharp it is, the image is not going to get any sharper because that is as sharp a the sensor can produce.

@ wilis : just for interest sake .. The pixel density of the D3x is about the same as the D90. so a lens that is sharp on a D90 will look just as sharp on the D3x if you pixel peep. However if a lens is not as sharp on a D90(ie the sensor out resolves the lens) is put on a D3 or D700 it will look sharper due to the lesser pixel density of the FF. (sorry just has to digress - just thought that it was a cool phenomenon that a weaker lens can look better on FX cf. DX)

I think we started with sharpness so maybe we just as well define what sharpness actually is.
Sharpness consist of two aspects, lens resolution which could be precisely measured and can not be improved by PS (it can only be ruined by it actually), and acutance or the ability to produce distinguishable contours of an objects in focus inside the image that is not so easy measured and could be emphasized by PS or plug–ins to some degree that is pleasing or not to an eye of a spectator.
Besides the sharpness there are great many other lens aspects affecting the IQ such as quality of a lack of sharpness or bokeh that is hard to measure but easily ruined by PS, light fail of and inaccuracy, various aberrations and distortions (some of them can be diminished by using PS but only by seriously affecting image sharpness and accuracy), contrast and color reproduction etc.
PS is an indispensable tool for digital photography that could help you improve on what you already caught with your lens, but without great lenses there will never be great photography.

The lens indeed. I don't use photoshop at all, but I do know that there are things you cannot save with photoshop because the image really is that bad.

The thing with nikon lenses is that they are all pretty good when used for the sort of shots they were intended. My $100 18-55 kit zoom easily out resolves the D40 it came with (at the middle apertures). What this means is that you could slap my 24-70 on their and take the same shot and not be able to tell the difference.

I suspect that if you performed the same test on a D3x, the differences would be less subtle. Owning expensive glass isn't about taking sharper images, its about being in a position to capture exactly the image you want, and having absolute control over your composition. Try shooting a wedding with a kit zoom. It will only capture 1/4 as much light (zoomed in at 55mm (f5.4) compared to the pro lens at 2.8. That means shooting at 1/250 vs. 1/60th of a second. Will that get you sharper pictures? You bet.

My kit zoom actually zooms in or out ever so slightly as I focus. This makes tight compositions a pain... I wind up having to crop a little off every shot.

A pro zoom feels like an instrument, not a toy (of course if I'm using it than it is a toy, as I'm no pro). You kind of have to hold one to understand, but its truly a joy to use. It zooms smoothly from the wide end to the narrow end. It has weather sealing. It finds its focus quickly and doesn't hunt. A porche and a chevy truck will both get you to your destination in about the same time (if you obey the speed limit), but the feel is unmistakeably different.

Is expensive glass worth the money? Of course not... not for a hobbiest. Should that stop you from buying it? Absolutely not. Its you hobby, don't let anyone tell you how to enjoy it. That's only fun if your hobby happens to be listening to people.

If you get the shot you want, the lens you use is unimportant, but I find I get more winners when I use the better glass.

>> nikonian wrote: 35-70 2.8 and with good pp skill, 24-70 will be smoked <<

Now we are starting to talk about a discontinued lens and at its inception the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 wasn't a "cheap" lens either.

woww. awesome response from everyone here. thanks so much.

i am a lil bit overwhelmed here. LOL. but okay, so far what I can summarize is:

- the good lens saves you time to post process (I can accept this without a problem). I also think that editing picture with photoshop is time consuming and hard.

- bokeh (some people said that PP cant do crap about this) and I believe it. it seems hard.

Hearty fisher take this discussion to another level and i seriously wanna thank you man. LOL.

THATS REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY BUT DAMN, somehow i just cant get that out of my mouth.

YEAH, is the benefit of that good fast glass really worth it?

i know i digress lil bit here but lets take this discussion even further. like people paying nikon 24-70 2.8 for 1800 bucks. this is serious dollars here and seriously is it worth that much? i am not talking about 24-70 alone. But come on. hearty fisher brings up a good point by comparing it to 35-70 2.8 and with good pp skill, 24-70 will be smoked.

so guys, what do you think?

I really believe what hearty fisher said. and i am still thinking that the expensive lens is not worth that much. But again, I am not trying to offend anyone here. Its good if you can afford it but we are talking whether its worth it or not.

woww. awesome response from everyone here. thanks so much.

i am a lil bit overwhelmed here. LOL. but okay, so far what I can summarize is:

- the good lens saves you time to post process (I can accept this without a problem). I also think that editing picture with photoshop is time consuming and hard.

- bokeh (some people said that PP cant do crap about this) and I believe it. it seems hard.

Hearty fisher take this discussion to another level and i seriously wanna thank you man. LOL.

THATS REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY BUT DAMN, somehow i just cant get that out of my mouth.

YEAH, is the benefit of that good fast glass really worth it?

i know i digress lil bit here but lets take this discussion even further. like people paying nikon 24-70 2.8 for 1800 bucks. this is serious dollars here and seriously is it worth that much? i am not talking about 24-70 alone. But come on. hearty fisher brings up a good point by comparing it to 35-70 2.8 and with good pp skill, 24-70 will be smoked.

so guys, what do you think?

I really believe what hearty fisher said. and i am still thinking that the expensive lens is not worth that much. But again, I am not trying to offend anyone here. Its good if you can afford it but we are talking whether its worth it or not.