Can someone enlighten me?

[esmondng]

i think hor, most of us pple here juz like to snap fotos. (nt so much the end result, but the process instead) ... that's y photography is our hobbie.

....unless ur hobbie is computer graphics/editing then by all means i suppose.

 

[Splutter]

I like the way you put it :bsmilie:

you got play video games ? It's like building up your character level.
My character : Bahibo
Class : Newbie photographer.
Photography skill : 30
weapons : 1.4 lens super sharp --> +10
special skill : super photoshop cs2 --> +10
----------------------------------------
Overall attack power = my photo quality :50.

What i mean is that :

1-Your skill is most important.

2-When u use film,there is a stage called dark room, in digital,that stage is put the photo file in ur pc then print. Edit it or not is ur choice,u only want to print,then print. But i think u know that the editing (or process in film) is one significant part in the quality of your photo's quality

3-The lens or in general, equipments. Some people from outside may look in our CS and say "waa,these people, photoshop can give the photo which produce by low class cam the same look with their d200 1.4 lens, so they just like those collector or to obsessed with their cam or one way too throw money" ---> it's not really right my friend.


My arguements are :

-When u (and me ) begin,we use kit lens, and i feel my 18-55 or 12-24 produce the same. The 12-24 may be sharper,the colour may be nicer,but i can use photoshop to do it,or even better.--> So what the point.

-But as i learn more, i learned how to fully or just more about how to unlock those ability of the lens that's sleeping waiting for true photographers --> that's when i know it's sharpness can't use sharpening to achieve,it's colour photoshop can create but not so easily ,the boken u can't make.

-You may say that's : Common,bahibo got no proof,he just say that only good photographer will respect and need good equipments. NO! Amateurs also realize the need for them.

+ U stated "good lens" so i'll talk about good lens.

. The f stop, in situation that u need 1.8, 1.4. What u do ? U have some option,use tripod - but downside is shutter speed to slow, you boost iso - noise , photoshop can fix noise but not really,look closer,don't need to be pixel by pixel,just print 8r and see . So what u do ? You choose to shoot at Iso 800 or 400,with widest f.stop you have. What if the photo underexpose ? Ur shadow/hightlight can't fix.

. The sharpness :this i don't need to say much,sharpen in photoshop (even smart sharpen ) will really affect the photo in the bad way. And how can u add the detail that aren't in ur photo ?

. Boken - i'm not sure got effect can create the efffect of 400 2.8 ( just pretend got this lens in the world )

. How fast the auto focus ,how quite it's focus. The moment..means everything to photographers.

And there is some special lens ,most common is macro lens .



*My 2 cents thought:
How well can ur photoshop remove flare if the lens not well coated.
How well ur photoshope can add the sharpness if the cam and the lens don't produce that in the data.
And ur photoshops can remove what newbie called dark corner if the wide lens is too bad ? Or the light fall out....etc


So am i saying photoshop bad. No man. Photoshop is the dark room stage, i was mainly use film, so i respect what that stage can do. Not like newbie think, photograph for enthusiatist is not only the photo come straight out from the cam but the film ( or the digital cam sensor ) and how you do post processing. U will understand why i won't go to Kodak express but Konota to get my film ,colour or b&w developed. Photoshop important like that to digital,but it's not everything, if it's as u stage , only photoshop and some photo skill , it's like u play RPG with only some high magic (ur photoshop ) and some low or middle class weapon and armour ,and u are facing Ultima Weapon


* You may say we are perfectionist, actually, we all want to move toward the perfect stage,just trying to reach the top . And we aren't afford to shoot again, go home,not good, go back shoot again,the moment, when it come, we want to face it with the best we have. Then we can take that and go home to make it better.
Thanks for reading my long post.

 

[chjing]

Thanks man!

 

[chanxj]

:thumbsup:

 

[bahibo]

thanks , i'm a bit in love with rpg game like final fantasy 7

 

[ortega]

ortega cast enlightenment on bahibo
bahibo receive photograghy wisdon +10

 

[tOGGY]

a piece of paper when burnt will turn to ash. but you cannot apply fire to ash and turn it into paper. go figure.

Wah liao, first class honours for succint expression.

One can always claim he can turn their ashes to paper. We have to see their from ash-to- paper to understand their powderful PS skills. CXjing, do show us what you really mean with an image example.

 

[babykailan]

when i told my friend i do post-processing to my photos, he gave snide remarks like "what happened to real photography?".

a good lens and great skills help to set up a strong foundation. with pp, you can probably make the picture fly. it really depends on how happy you are with the initial shot. pp is part of the arsenal of tools you *can use* to enhance an image you took using a digital camera. most importantly, the end product must achieve what you envisioned and that is uniquely up to individual style.

 

[wind30]

actually,

I guess what he meant was like comparing a nikon 17-55 f2.8 to a third party 17-50mm f2.8 lens. The nikon cost like 3x the third party lens......

The difference in the output between these two lens is NOT huge. And will probably be overwhelmed by any PS you do, ie tuning levels, sharpening, etc.

Seriously, does any have any sample pic from both lens? After PS, I bet most of you cannot tell apart which pic came from whcih lens....

So is it worth it to get the nikon 17-55mm???

I think nobody is talking about comparing a portrait shot by a 85mm f1.4 lens to a 18-70mm kit lens.

 

[zac08]

actually,

I guess what he meant was like comparing a nikon 17-55 f2.8 to a third party 17-50mm f2.8 lens. The nikon cost like 3x the third party lens......

The difference in the output between these two lens is NOT huge. And will probably be overwhelmed by any PS you do, ie tuning levels, sharpening, etc.

Seriously, does any have any sample pic from both lens? After PS, I bet most of you cannot tell apart which pic came from whcih lens....

So is it worth it to get the nikon 17-55mm???

I think nobody is talking about comparing a portrait shot by a 85mm f1.4 lens to a 18-70mm kit lens.

well, the AF speed, CA, distortion of the image comes to mind.

If you dun mind taking time to do PP, then go for the cheaper option. The tools are there... and why they are reccomended are because, they save you time in the long run. And dun forget, time is money.

 

[wind30]

well, the AF speed, CA, distortion of the image comes to mind.

If you dun mind taking time to do PP, then go for the cheaper option. The tools are there... and why they are reccomended are because, they save you time in the long run. And dun forget, time is money.

AF speed... dunno about the nikkon 17-55mm but I have tried the third party lens and they focus pretty fast for amateurs like me.

where distortion/CA is visibleCA and distortion are pretty well controlled even on the third party lens. And for that 5% of shots, PS takes like minutes if not seconds to correct.

Ya actually the impt thing is time. For pros who takes like thousands of shots, then it is really a big factor. But for amateurs/hobbyist like me who take the few shots here and there, it doesn't really make sense to pay 3x more for the 10% improvement in quality which can be easily PSed away.

 

[zac08]

AF speed... dunno about the nikkon 17-55mm but I have tried the third party lens and they focus pretty fast for amateurs like me.

where distortion/CA is visibleCA and distortion are pretty well controlled even on the third party lens. And for that 5% of shots, PS takes like minutes if not seconds to correct.

Ya actually the impt thing is time. For pros who takes like thousands of shots, then it is really a big factor. But for amateurs/hobbyist like me who take the few shots here and there, it doesn't really make sense to pay 3x more for the 10% improvement in quality which can be easily PSed away.

As mentioned... it's all up to you.

 

[unseen]

well, the AF speed, CA, distortion of the image comes to mind.

If you dun mind taking time to do PP, then go for the cheaper option. The tools are there... and why they are reccomended are because, they save you time in the long run. And dun forget, time is money.

We're talking about images produced, not physical attributes of the images, so... Let's look at the images we get out of lenses. After all, it's the images that make the photographer money.

Hmmm which image out of a dSLR doesn't require PP? I believe most well learnt photographers would know that if you don't want PP, stick to PnS..

Given that I'm doing PP..
I sharpen 10%, i sharpen 20% or i sharpen 30%, still the same amount of time spent.
I increase contrast by 5 or 10 or 20, it's the same amount of time spent.
I increase colour saturation by 5, 10, 50 or even 100, it's still the same amount of time spent.
I record all into actions, compounded with CA correction, distortion correction, they're going to take me mere seconds to do each photo regardless by a nikon 17-55 f2.8 or a tamron 17-50 f2.8. Those equal mere seconds spent on the images will give you virtually indistinguishable images

That said, some lenses are so bad (like the canon 70-300 or 75-300) that photoshop can't really save the images (photoshop can't easily recreate the details that the lens cannot resolve). For me now, I really value the resolving power of some lenses.

 

[zac08]

We're talking about images produced, not physical attributes of the images, so... Let's look at the images we get out of lenses. After all, it's the images that make the photographer money.

Hmmm which image out of a dSLR doesn't require PP? I believe most well learnt photographers would know that if you don't want PP, stick to PnS..

Given that I'm doing PP..
I sharpen 10%, i sharpen 20% or i sharpen 30%, still the same amount of time spent.
I increase contrast by 5 or 10 or 20, it's the same amount of time spent.
I increase colour saturation by 5, 10, 50 or even 100, it's still the same amount of time spent.
I record all into actions, compounded with CA correction, distortion correction, they're going to take me mere seconds to do each photo regardless by a nikon 17-55 f2.8 or a tamron 17-50 f2.8. Those equal mere seconds spent on the images will give you virtually indistinguishable images

That said, some lenses are so bad (like the canon 70-300 or 75-300) that photoshop can't really save the images (photoshop can't easily recreate the details that the lens cannot resolve). For me now, I really value the resolving power of some lenses.

Well... if you think it's the same, then go ahead. I'm not here to stop you. I dun have powerful equipment anyway. But I am aiming for them to allow me to work more easily and not spend too much time sitting in front of the computer to check if the picture needs major correction...

 

[CantikFotos]

when i told my friend i do post-processing to my photos, he gave snide remarks like "what happened to real photography?".

So.....did your friend ever work in a darkroom? Did he grind raw chemicals to make his own developers and toners? Did he adjust the contrast of the images through paper or development times? Did he dodge and burn shadows and highlights?

Real photography? Take alook at some of Ansel Adams' prints.........a print made from a negative in the 1930s-40s looks completely different from a print he made from the same negative in the 70s-80s. He was a master of post-processing and was proud of it.

"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways." - Ansel Adams

 

[lsisaxon]

Thanks.
But how bad can a photo be if taken from a cheap lens when is photoshopped very nicely? you cant tell whether its from a expensive lens or cheaps lens once photoshopped with nice effects.

It's different. Depth of field, how the out of focus area blurs is different. If everything can be so easily photoshopped, there won't be a need to use SLRs/DSLRs already. Digital compacts would have done just fine.. But it's different... BTW, I only use editing tools to fine tune exposure and crop the images. A well shot photo is still important to start with.

 

[lsisaxon]

actually,

I guess what he meant was like comparing a nikon 17-55 f2.8 to a third party 17-50mm f2.8 lens. The nikon cost like 3x the third party lens......

The difference in the output between these two lens is NOT huge. And will probably be overwhelmed by any PS you do, ie tuning levels, sharpening, etc.

Seriously, does any have any sample pic from both lens? After PS, I bet most of you cannot tell apart which pic came from whcih lens....

So is it worth it to get the nikon 17-55mm???

I think nobody is talking about comparing a portrait shot by a 85mm f1.4 lens to a 18-70mm kit lens.

It makes a difference if you need details at the maximum aperture. Most cheaper lenses do not do well when it is fully open. However, most of the time, once they are stopped down, it is already quite hard to tell the difference already. Still expensive lenses can sell because it's the shallow focus which can only be obtained by opening up the aperture that people are after.

 

[lsisaxon]

. Boken - i'm not sure got effect can create the efffect of 400 2.8 ( just pretend got this lens in the world )

. How fast the auto focus ,how quite it's focus. The moment..means everything to photographers.

...

So am i saying photoshop bad. No man. Photoshop is the dark room stage, i was mainly use film, so i respect what that stage can do. Not like newbie think, photograph for enthusiatist is not only the photo come straight out from the cam but the film ( or the digital cam sensor ) and how you do post processing. U will understand why i won't go to Kodak express but Konota to get my film ,colour or b&w developed. Photoshop important like that to digital,but it's not everything, if it's as u stage , only photoshop and some photo skill , it's like u play RPG with only some high magic (ur photoshop ) and some low or middle class weapon and armour ,and u are facing Ultima Weapon

Good one.

No need to pretend. The lens exist! Quite a number of brands have this lens. The link below is an example.
http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=116-4f7859baa1

There was a saying that photography is 70% in the shooting and 30% in darkroom. I used to do a lot of darkroom work when I shoot film but there is quite a difference between film and digital. I seldom shoot slides so I'll make my remarks based on colour negative to print processing.

For film, you get to choose the brand of film you like, then you shoot with it. Then that's where a lot of uncertainities come in. Who developed the film? Was the chemical used fresh or nearly exhausted? These make a difference.

Then you do the printing. What paper you used? Which batch? All of them have a different colour correction factor. If you print yourself, you can correct. If you send to lab, you are at the mercy of the lab. Did they calibrate the prints properly? Was the chemical used fresh or nearly exhausted? They make a difference too!

Digital is more simple. After you choose a brand of body, whether you like it or not, the characteristics of the imaging sensor is like that. If you shoot RAW, to correct the sensor's linearity/curve you are almost able to apply the same fix to every shot, 1st shot or 1000th shot doesn't matter. This apply if your exposure is consistent. Then you can fine tune your colour and exposure if they are slightly off. Things get simpler than darkroom.

If you shoot JPG, things are even simpler. You can put in a custom curve and it may be quite possible to get away with good straight out of camera shots if composition, exposure and WB is correct!

The 70-30 rule isn't that strict anymore! Very much like shooting slides.

 

[user111]

what is the use of having good cameras and good lenses if you can make the photos look damn nice using photoshop (those photos i saw here which i believe are all photoshopped). Therefore just master photoshop! no need expensive lenses!
someone enlighten me please?

there are some things that photoshop cant do

 

[smallaperture]

A simplistic view.

A great lens, good camera and a good shot. Rated 95, after PS you get 98.

A mediocre lens, and an average shot. Rated 70, after PS, you may get 85.

Of course, there are other aspects like distortion, flare, bokeh, durability, reliability, handling and ease of use and many other stuff that only the pros would be concerned. And of course, speed in terms of AF speed, max aperture.....

And one more thing that comes to mind : The law of diminishing returns. By doubling the price, you don't get something that is double the results. I would say it is like almost exponential.

For example, a cheap 70-300 lens might cost $400. A pro-quality lens in the range 100-300 would cost 4 x $400 = $1600 ! !