where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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.
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 : )
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.
"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.
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.
good post monty! - couldn't agree more
Oh yeah, monty11 rules, sharp and accurate as ever.
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!
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.
"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.
"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
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.
"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.
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.
Amen Technologic!
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.
You must log in to post.
