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.
thanks , i'm a bit in love with rpg game like final fantasy 7
ortega cast enlightenment on bahibo
bahibo receive photograghy wisdon +10
Last edited by ortega; 10th November 2006 at 09:49 AM.
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.
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.
Last edited by wind30; 10th November 2006 at 04:35 PM.
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.
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...
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
Last edited by CantikFotos; 30th November 2006 at 01:29 PM.
No need to pretend. The lens exist! Quite a number of brands have this lens. The link below is an example.
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.
Last edited by lsisaxon; 11th November 2006 at 06:18 PM.
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 ! !
Last edited by smallaperture; 12th November 2006 at 08:38 PM.
I love big car, big house, big lenses, but small apertures.