Can you make a good lens great?

[malcom_knight]

<p> With Photoshop, can you make a good lens great? Is it really worth spending $$$$ on the top of the line lens if you can make it better through post processing? I understand getting a top of the line lens for speed if it's your profession, but how about general image quality. (Landscape and people). With all these post processing tricks, can you make that mid level lens look like a top of the line one?</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I wouldn't expect typical Photoshop post-processing techniques to add detail that was never captured in the first place. I think it's reasonable to assume that given equivalent photoshop skills, better lenses will yield somewhat better results--just how much is that difference worth to you? However in gear-oriented internet forums, sometimes the *need* for the very best lenses is exaggerated.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You might make the <em>picture</em> better, but not the <em>lens</em> - at least not in the same way that you would have more and better data from a better lens.<br>

I agree with the general thrust of Andrew's comment: it's really hard to make something out of nothing. In an analogy to exposure, I'd suggest that once the highlights are really, definitely, most assuredly blown out, you could draw in or clone in detail in Photoshop into that area, but that is not "correcting" the exposure, it's falsifying it. I suppose you can work out the parallels to that in terms of real acuity as opposed to 'sharpening' in Photoshop, etc.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand getting a top of the line lens <strong><em>for speed </em></strong><em>if it's your profession</em>, but how about <strong><em>general image quality. </em></strong><em>(Landscape and people)<strong>.</strong></em> With all these post processing tricks, can you make that mid level lens look like a top of the line one?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I agree with Andrew, about the better lens will give better results all else equal and also I agree about the "need" for the very best lens often being exaggerated.</p>

<p>I'll point out that it really doesn't cost very much for quite fine lenses, especially Prime Lenses and more so, if the Prime Lenses are compared to zooms in the same price area.<br>

For example and EF32/2, EF50/1.8MkII and EF85/1.8 would stack up well and have faster lens speed, than many of the 28 to 135, ranged zooms.<br>

Understood that there is a convenience of zoom; but the question is about image quality and the relative "cost" of that quality.</p>

<p>Also onnthe other part of the question: getting a <strong><em>fast lens</em></strong> is a bit more than just being about "image quality" – at the pointy end - taking the photo a fast lens has advantages way before the file finds its place in Photoshop.</p>

<p>A fast lens is about many things like (but not limited to):</p>

<ul>

<li>more effective AF,</li>

<li>brighter viewfinder,</li>

<li>the ability to shoot in lower light levels,</li>

<li>stopping subject motion, </li>

<li>not raising ISO</li>

<li>ability to use tele-extenders </li>

<li>ease of manual focussing</li>

<li>ease of using extension tubes</li>

<li>ease to get shallow Depth of Filed with a lens than with Photoshop. . .</li>

</ul>

<p>Not every one of these point might apply to general everyday shooting every time we pull the shutter release, but I think most garden variety amateur photographers would see some benefit in many.</p>

<p>A faster lens it's not JUST about “image quality”.<br>

And a faster lens does not need to cost the earth, either.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p> </p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Think about what you're saying and what you really mean. Expressions like "good lens" and "great lens" refer to inherent qualities of the lenses, so of course Photoshop can't make a difference there. <br>

If you're talking about the perceived sharpness of a print, then yes, absolutely. A skillful photographer with a mediocre lens can pick subjects with high local contrast, light them with raking light to emphasize texture, and get great quality right in the camera, no post-processing needed. A tyro can take a fuzzy, badly exposed picture, oversharpen and manipulate it, and produce a picture the uneducated might consider great, just as elephants and chimpanzees have produced abstract works that wowed certain self-styled connoisseurs.<br>

Has this got anything to do with the sort of detail that can be produced by superior optics in the hands of a professional? No. Conversely, are these detailed images artistically superior to any of a number of impressionistic images produced in the Pictorialist tradition? Also no.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Photoshop can correct for some of a lens' flaws, but not all of them. It can't make a lens sharper. An soft lens doesn't capture detail as well as a sharp lens. If the detail isn't in the file, Photoshop can't put it back.</p>

<p>Expensive lenses might be more expensive because -</p>

<ul>

<li>they are faster (i.e. they can allow in more light as the time of capture/focusing)</li>

<li>they have better optics and/or coatings</li>

<li>they are more rugged</li>

<li>they have special features such as image stabilization/vibration reduction</li>

</ul>

<p>Photoshop cannot mimic the effect of any of these features.</p>

[mart_e]

<p>I think you can work around a lot of lenses - not in PP, but in use. Understanding the limitations of a lens and adapting your photography around those limits can help to maximise the benefits of a particular lens. I don't think that makes an average lens great, but I think it can deliver results that are perhaps closer to those taken with more expensive lenses.</p>

[george_ghio]

<p>The best way to make a mid range lens (perform) better is to improve your photography skills. When you start accepting second class photos in the hope that you can make the photo into a first class product with post processing, you must also admit that you will never be a first class photographer.</p>

<p>Sorry, but that's the way it is. It's like driving a racing car in a big race and saying "I know that my skills are not up to this but it's ok because I can edit out the crash on the video."</p>

<p>Develop your skills, and minimize your post processing. You will be alot happier in the long run.</p>

[jim_manganella]

<p>Look at it this way. Imagine the results when you work an image from a top of the line lens... there's no comparison.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>You can't make a lens better in post processing, as everyone above has said. What you CAN do is make sure you are using your lens - and your skills as a photographer - to their fullest. If you have a favorite lens, you can do tests yourself to see where it is sharpest, has the least light falloff, etc. Maybe if your lens is soft, you use it for portraits - if you have one that is sharper, use it for your landscapes. It really is about maximizing your skills and your equipment and knowing, in both cases, what the limitations are. </p>

[malcom_knight]

<p>I'm sure some of you have seen the Art - Photoshop Magazines at the bookstores. In these magazines, there are things you can do to an image that are incredible. My question was based on having fantastic Photoshop skills- Being able to manipulate pixels and colors with skill. My question is not based on the cheapest lenses, but name brand- good ones. It seems like with lots of time and proper skills that a Photoshop Artist could do wonders with mid-range lenses.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for the clarification.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It seems like with lots of time and proper skills that a Photoshop Artist could do wonders with mid-range lenses."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I think I know what you mean but . . .<br />No. . . not “do wonders <strong><em>with mid range lenses</em></strong>” but do wonders with the files the mid range lenses can make . . . that’s where the confusion was in the first question you posted.</p>

<p>The Darkroom Artistry is a different element in the process.<br />The quality and type of capture the lens makes is another different element.<br />Provided the lens makes a suitable negative for the Darkroom Technician or suitable File for the Photoshop Artist to work and make the final prodiuct required - then that's fine - use the lens which provides that neagtive or file.<br>

For example Artistic Works can be make with a Pinhole Camera or a Disposable Camera with a Plastic Lens.</p>

<p>For another example about the two elements and working toward the end result, perhaps something more relevant, but less “Artistic”:</p>

<p>I needed to shoot some Prize winners a few weeks ago – the end product was a web page ONLY. There were a truck load of kids and all had to be done quickly as they were presented with their trophies – I set two cameras and on one I used a “Kit Lens” (ef-s 18 to 55 F/3.5 - 5.6) . . . use at F/8 and a formula Flash Fill, I used the JPEG file standard two stage sharpening the images were up in about an hour after the shoot . . . for a studio portrait I would have used a different lens and different Photoshopping also. </p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p > </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Go to PixelPeepers.com and download full rez sample images taken with the most expensive camera and lens combo, view them at 100% and see if you can tell a difference from sample images taken with a less expensive combo.</p>

<p>The excuse that's often given why this won't tell you anything is that those are jpegs from inexperienced shooters who don't know how to set proper adjustments to get optimum results the lens can offer and so can't be trusted which I have to counter with that the whole point of paying for an expensive lens combo is so you DO get great looking jpegs without a lot of post processing.</p>

<p>All images have to be sharpened shooting Raw or jpeg, but I've taken several Raw shots with my Pentax K100D and kit lens where I actually had to reduce sharpness or else suffer the crispy's posting the image online. And then some images come out of the camera murky and soft where post processing makes the image jump off the screen. It's never consistent so I can't blame the lens, but the circumstances in which I'm shooting.</p>

<p>I mean sometimes I lean in a bit throwing narrow DOF off the plane of focus but not seeing it in the viewfinder. And as for contrast which has a major affect on the appearance of clarity and sharpness, try keeping that consistent shooting outdoors especially since not all sensors behave linearly most of the time.</p>

<p>This is why I think online lens tests don't tell the whole truth on how the lens will perform out in the field and won't show manufacturing differences between the same model which can often be inconsistent.</p>

<p>Of course if the lens is built like a tank with firm and fast moving parts that stay put after adjusting and don't come loose with rigorous use and is waterproof, then I can see where the money is, but that's not going to show up in a lens test.</p>