Reading mode: Light Dark

Do your PS skills make your lenses sharper?

Go to last post
F

FatBoyAl

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
260
Reaction score
0
Location
Paradise, CA, US
I think you get the drift of my title - as you get better with Photoshop and whatever RAW converter you use, do your lenses seem sharper?

I learned a few new tricks for PS this week and tried them out on some shots with my (now sold) 28-105 and my Tamron 28-75. I always thought both were pretty decent lenses, but I must say, they seem a lot better right now.

i know I see folks put up shots from their L primes and zooms (and I have a number myself) that are out-of-the-box incredible. I'm just wondering how much of the lens sharpness (or lack thereof) can be traced back to our knowledge and usage of PP software. I know I won't make my Sigma 70-300 outperform my Canon 70-200, but I can see my older, cheaper lenses looking better as my skills advance.
Have any of you noticed the same thing?
 
are we better or are the lenses better. you may have a very good point there, but out of camera, I think the new lenses are improved. [especially IS] Heck, my sharpest shots though were my Sony 5mpx out of camera until I got a few "L"s that matched it in clarity.
--



Linda~ http://sweetlight.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/362
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown
 
Post processing definitely helps - you can get better focus using Focus Magic or a very interesting recent thread in the retouching forum on using the emboss filter. And skilled sharpening is an art which can really enhance a picture.
 
...but only to a point. Post processing is very important but it's better to start out with better raw (pun intended) material. With sharpening and contrast adjustments you can make any reasonably decent picture look sharp at a glance, especially at web size, but you can't add back the fine detail that's not there to begin with.
 
Postprocessing does not make your lens sharper nor your pictures better. But for sure it can make your good pictures a bit "more impressive" by getting most out of it.

It is a fair question what difference you can really see after postprocessing between a good lens and an excellent lens. Fact is that an excellent lens delivers better results without postprocessing.

TORN
 
(Disclaimer: A soft lens used badly will never be able to give you anything decent, no matter how many hours you spend in post processing.)

Post processing can reduce noise, can improve lack of contrast or subdued colour saturation to some extent. Even so, I only spend the time doing this if the shot has captured a great moment and I simply can't throw the picture away. It lets me keep shots from compromised situations that otherwise I would not be happy with. I would never display them as large as shots taken with good technique, good light, and good lenses.

Having said all that, I do perform USM on pretty much all of my images just to give them a final polish (I set in-camera shaprness to zero). I also shoot RAW more often than jpg, so I also perform a lot of manual daylight selection and refine the exposure after the shoot. If there is something small but very distracting in the background of an otherwise great picture, then sure I clone it out. Also, some photos simply look better in black and white than colour - another procedure best performed in the digital darkroom. And if you want a landscape shot with high dynamic range, then you have no choice but to take several shots at different exposures and then blend them in post processing.

Bottom line: There are lots of superb PP techniques that can really make a difference to your shots, but actually getting the shot with the camera in the first place is deffinately the crucial first step, and often is all that is "absolutely" necessary.

--
Stu.
 
Sharpening only gives the appearance of being more sharp. It accentuates the edges. Of course, appearance is everything in photography. No lens on any DSLR will produce world class appearance without some type of sharpening (in camera, or in post-processing).

You've just learned what most on this forum learn, post processing can make your photos much more visually appealing. Part of the learning process also consists of knowing when to stop.

Have fun,

jgb
FatBoyAl said:
I think you get the drift of my title - as you get better with
Photoshop and whatever RAW converter you use, do your lenses seem
sharper?
I learned a few new tricks for PS this week and tried them out on
some shots with my (now sold) 28-105 and my Tamron 28-75. I always
thought both were pretty decent lenses, but I must say, they seem a
lot better right now.
i know I see folks put up shots from their L primes and zooms (and
I have a number myself) that are out-of-the-box incredible. I'm
just wondering how much of the lens sharpness (or lack thereof) can
be traced back to our knowledge and usage of PP software. I know I
won't make my Sigma 70-300 outperform my Canon 70-200, but I can
see my older, cheaper lenses looking better as my skills advance.
Have any of you noticed the same thing?
Click to expand...
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b
 
Yes, I agree.

Not only that, my photos become sharper after I replaced my old eye glasses.

My photos got even sharper after replaced my monitor with a high resolution monitor.
 
I guess where I was going is that I wonder, as we progress as photographers, we typically get better equipment. We also, now as digital photogs, get better at our PP skills. I've spent the better part of the last year reading every bloody thing - technically - on cameras and lens that I can find. I know you can't really polish a turd - you need a good starting point to make a great picture.

What I'm asking is for opinions about whether the "jump" we all seem to experience when moving up to better lenses is all about the lens or is it about our skills in PP?

Those of you that wish, can take the question apart and make points about what each of the words in the question I'm asking really mean, but why? I understand what USM does and how and I can read MTF charts.

I noticed that when I went back to shots taken by some of my "older" or "cheaper" lenses with my newer skills (since I always keep my RAWS, even the ones I shoulda tossed), that those shots seem to look better. I wonder how many of the lenses we've all poo-pooed and sold or oooohed and ahhhed at when we bought were a matter of lens or prowess at PP.

Not being too serious or critical - just wondering, ya know?
 
Hi Al,

I was not trying to parse your question, but rather to post an example of what good PS skills can do with rather unimpressive images. I have some what a background in astrophotography and most folks there probably put postprocessing at 80% or so of the final image. It is not that much in more conventional photography but good PS skills can save lots of images that would be deleted with out postprocessing.

This is not to say every effort should not be made to really nail the exposure and focus. Nor to say the best images are not usually the result of good photographer skills, good body, good lens, and maybe stuff like tripod, head, and plates. But it is rare to see really great images that have not been postprocessed.

Ansel Adams wrote three excellent books; The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. The point was it takes all three of these elements to produce good images. Now a days much of the last two books would be what we do with RAW converters and Photoshop.

One thing I have noticed is some of the old macros I captured with my Sigma 70-300 can be really improved with different treatment in the RAW converter and some PS work, but when the same effort is applied to images captured with a Sigma 150mm macro lens the result is definitely better.

I suspect you will find the same thing, yuor old images with old lens will improve with good postprocessing skills; but so will your new images captured with new better lens.
 
FatBoyAl said:
I guess where I was going is that I wonder, as we progress as
photographers, we typically get better equipment. We also, now as
digital photogs, get better at our PP skills. I've spent the better
part of the last year reading every bloody thing - technically - on
cameras and lens that I can find. I know you can't really polish a
turd - you need a good starting point to make a great picture.

What I'm asking is for opinions about whether the "jump" we all
seem to experience when moving up to better lenses is all about the
lens or is it about our skills in PP?

Those of you that wish, can take the question apart and make points
about what each of the words in the question I'm asking really
mean, but why? I understand what USM does and how and I can read
MTF charts.

I noticed that when I went back to shots taken by some of my
"older" or "cheaper" lenses with my newer skills (since I always
keep my RAWS, even the ones I shoulda tossed), that those shots
seem to look better. I wonder how many of the lenses we've all
poo-pooed and sold or oooohed and ahhhed at when we bought were a
matter of lens or prowess at PP.

Not being too serious or critical - just wondering, ya know?
Click to expand...
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b
 
Having good PS skills can certainly help but it's not going to make a photo shot with a $75 kit lens look like it was shot with a $1600 "L" lens. Otherwise no one would buy "L" glass.

That's it! Adobe should put an "L" button in their software, and voila! ;-)

Happy T Day!!
 
PP is necessary to restore the pic to its propre exposure. But it does also allow one to take IQ further than a lens alone can produce.

A snake that I shot waaay to the right:



PP'ed:



Some friends of mine during their honeymoon. Again shot way to the right (I find the 20D very forgiving in this regard):



And the final product:



The second pic was taken with the 28-135 IS and I can definitely say that PP helps even the best images out of that lens. Not that it's got bad IQ, but it doesn't have great IQ like a 135L, which often requires much less PP.

Ian
--
bughunter
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography

Gear in profile

'The will to disbelieve is the strongest deterrent to wider horizons.' -Hans Holzer
'It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.' -Sheryl Crow

 
Yes, PP makes your lens effectively better in many ways. Today's RAW converters can automatically detect the lens and focal length the shot was taken at. They then can apply compensation from a database to address known issues with that particular lens at that focal length such as distortion, vignetting, and CA issues. Not perfect, but only extraordinary requirements can tell.

For example, many complain about the Canon 17-85mm IS distortion at 17mm, but if software compensates for that, doesn't that make the lens better since now it is off the table. How long will it be before the camera does this.

As far as color and saturation goes I believe it is totally irrelevant what a lens does now. It is a tiny tweak in a RAW converter to do anything with color and saturation that can vastly overwhelm anyting in glass (or film)

You ask a great question, the reality is that image quality between a relatively inexpensive lens, and a very expensive "L" is very little (just read all the posts of surprise, or just think 50mm F1.8) and PP makes it even less. What "L" brings is build.

I know there are all kinds of disagreement again this line of thought (see above), but the reality is what you end up with on the screen or in print.
 
No lens that I have tried gives me pics that look super sharp at 100% magnification using RAW conversion with no sharpening applied. That's not for lack of trying some very sharp lenses.

--
Amin

equipment in profile
 
L's don't leave much room for improvement, so one can catch up with PP, whereas expensive lenses leave less room for improvement.

Heck, I know a professional artist that sells his photography art from a 4mpxl camera! At this point, ya gotta have that special creativity to make it big. And PP sure sets the bar up way high now.
--



Linda~ http://sweetlight.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/362
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top