[mee]

What you're describing will be the same for whatever lens you consider,it's the nature of most of the people who post pictures on these threads to "tweak" their pictures to get the best out of them.Unless you can start a thread for "unadulterated" jpegs that's the world you have to live in!

Understood that. Yet that was what I was trying to get at.. we should post what we did to the photos to get a better idea of what to expect out of the camera vs throwing up photos claiming the lens is capable of rendering that image. Otherwise we aren't showing what the lens can do, but what the post processor can do.

[timb64]

Understood that. Yet that was what I was trying to get at.. we should post what we did to the photos to get a better idea of what to expect out of the camera vs throwing up photos claiming the lens is capable of rendering that image. Otherwise we aren't showing what the lens can do, but what the post processor can do.

You really expect people to list what they've done in PP to the pictures they post?.

Firstly, I really can't see anyone slavishly recording each part of the procedure they go through just to post it in a Forum like this.Secondly how are you going to be able to tell from that what effect each of the tweaks has had unless each photo is accompanied by the ''before'' processed shot.

You just have to accept the generality that the lens is capable producing such and such a result albeit with some post processing.

[normhead]

Understood that. Yet that was what I was trying to get at.. we should post what we did to the photos to get a better idea of what to expect out of the camera vs throwing up photos claiming the lens is capable of rendering that image. Otherwise we aren't showing what the lens can do, but what the post processor can do.

You caught my attention.

When you put up an image and you are showing others what you do. You are showing what the camera is capable of. That is real strange logic you have going there.

Another person may like different sharpening, different contrast, all kinds of different things, but they can look at the images and say "yes, if I get up in the morning, if I get the exposure bang on, if I hedge my bets and take way more images than I need, if learn to post process, if I am wiling to spend hours learning the necessary software, yes I can produce that image."

It has always been so.The photographer has always been and always will be the most important element in creating a photograph.

Take the most overdone worked over port processed image you can imagine. The camera produced the raw image that made that image possible. NO matter what was done after. Are there really people stupid enough to think they buy a camera and will instantly be able to create an image equivalent to the best image ever taken with that camera? Are there people who don't realize behind every great photographer, there was a great darkroom technician?

But there is a thread for those who want to see what the camera can do using internal settings and no PP. But you still have to learn to set the camera settings for what you are doing.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/16...cessing-5.html

[mee]

You caught my attention.

When you put up an image and you are showing others what you do. You are showing what the camera is capable of. That is real strange logic you have going there.

I always seem to do.. You and I don't see eye to eye, this has become very clear to me so I hope you will accept that and just move on. I think this is about the third time you've told me in these forums I have 'strange logic.' I don't have 'strange logic', I simply have a different opinion or viewpoint than you.

However, this thread is entitled 'Show us what it can do' not 'show us what YOU can do' -- that is for a different thread.

This thread seemingly is for 'unadulterated' images taken with this particular lens, to show off what the lens is capable of doing without extra help.

Another person may like different sharpening, different contrast, all kinds of different things, but they can look at the images and say "yes, if I get up in the morning, if I get the exposure bang on, if I hedge my bets and take way more images than I need, if learn to post process, if I am wiling to spend hours learning the necessary software, yes I can produce that image."

It has always been so.The photographer has always been and always will be the most important element in creating a photograph.

Yet different sharpening, different contrast, and all kinds of different things aren't what this lens can do persay, but what the post processing software can do with the data the camera output. That is much different than what the lens is rendering and the camera is recording on it's own... which is what this thread is asking for. Once you step into post processing and start enhancing sharpness and saturation (for example) you're no longer wearing a photographer hat but an image post processor/processing hat.

Take the most overdone worked over port processed image you can imagine. The camera produced the raw image that made that image possible. NO matter what was done after. Are there really people stupid enough to think they buy a camera and will instantly be able to create an image equivalent to the best image ever taken with that camera? Are there people who don't realize behind every great photographer, there was a great darkroom technician?

Yet the camera isn't what is on display here -- the lens is. I have no idea the answer to your questions, yet I do know if I'm looking at buying a lens and I see a wonderful processed series of images with the kit lens and they pop magnificently vs a more 'up scale' lens that is not (due to no extreme enhancements) I'm going to think the kit lens is doing wonders. Again this goes back to my analogy of makeup. Some are really good at making the enhancements look natural when they're not. There is no way to tell unless they share this info. Others are so heavy handed, that it is obvious (which is how this whole discussion started -- I saw some that were obviously helped significantly).

This thread started with a person looking to buy this lens and wanting to see what this LENS could do. A lot of the images in here could be recreated with lesser lenses stopped down and post processed carefully. But I don't think they want to do that. They wanted too see what this particular lens could do on it's own.

But there is a thread for those who want to see what the camera can do using internal settings and no PP. But you still have to learn to set the camera settings for what you are doing.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/16...cessing-5.html

That is this thread -- ie 'show us what IT [the 18-135 lens] can do.' You're in that thread.

A simple tag of 'PP in lightroom' or 'PP with topaz' or something satisfies the goal of informing others this image was helped along and it isn't a "natural" shot. Not asking for a long, detailed list of everything done in post but just a tag that there was post (beyond exposure adjustments).

[acoufap]

But there is a thread for those who want to see what the camera can do using internal settings and no PP. But you still have to learn to set the camera settings for what you are doing.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/16...cessing-5.html

I'd like to say it in a little bit other words:

In camera processing is post processing! Strange isn't it?

No, it isn't. Your camera contains a computer with a raw converter software. Setting a special image profile at your camera configures / sets parameters that are applied while converting the raw data into a jpeg image. The resulting image you can see in raw captures as preview images on the camera display.

Today you even can set in camera special parameters for highlight recovery etc. - so a kind of local adjustments!

Learn to set the camera settings is nothing else than post processing.

I prefer to do these things on an "external" computer. So I photograph using the raw file format and have more time to get it right some time later. This external post processing can be done using presets like the ones you choose on your camera or you do it more refined using local adjustments, digital grad filters etc.



---------- Post added 2016-04-09 at 15:18 ----------

Yet different sharpening, different contrast, and all kinds of different things aren't what this lens can do persay ...

Hm - you always see a post processed file that did settings for these things when look at a jpeg file!

Talking about lens characteristics, we can say there are some methods in post processing - also in camera !!! - to get rid of lens weaknesses. So what is truth? What we can state is that the better the lens, the less post processing corrections have to be done and image rendering is always a result of lens characteristics plus raw file processing based on a given sensor with specific characteristics . Not all weaknesses of lenses can be corrected to satisfaction in post - like decentering effects, general unsharpness etc. … so it's always good to get good optics and a good copy of it.

[mee]

I'd like to say it in a little bit other words:

In camera processing is post processing! Strange isn't it?

No, it isn't. Your camera contains a computer with a raw converter software. Setting a special image profile at your camera configures / sets parameters that are applied while converting the raw data into a jpeg image. The resulting image you can see in raw captures as preview images on the camera display.

Today you even can set in camera special parameters for highlight recovery etc. - so a kind of local adjustments!

Learn to set the camera settings is nothing else than post processing.

I prefer to do these things on an "external" computer. So I photograph using the raw file format and have more time to get it right some time later. This external post processing can be done using presets like the ones you choose on your camera or you do it more refined using local adjustments, digital grad filters etc.

Yes, this is completely true - you can increase (and decrease) some of these settings in camera. And that is still Post Processing.

But as long as we aren't playing with the color fidelity, sharpness, or contrast (esp micro contrast [clarity slider in LR, Structure slider in Nik] which I don't think the camera can touch) then this is a non-issue. Because the color rendering, sharpness, and contrast are all generally qualities of the lens. Punching those up gives an inaccurate view of what the lens did on its own.. you're now helping it out by adjusting those type of settings.

---------- Post added 04-09-16 at 09:29 AM ----------

Hm - you always see a post processed file that did settings for these things when look at a jpeg file!

Talking about lens characteristics, we can say there are some methods in post processing - also in camera !!! - to get rid of lens weaknesses. So what is truth? What we can state is that the better the lens, the less post processing corrections have to be done and image rendering is always a result of lens characteristics plus raw file processing based on a given sensor with specific characteristics . Not all weaknesses of lenses can be corrected to satisfaction in post - like decentering effects, general unsharpness etc. … so it's always good to get good optics and a good copy of it.

Yes and I said that above a couple responses ago. However, In a thread that is completely about showing off a particular lens' strengths and weakness, adding 'makeup' to the 'face' of this lens is hiding it's natural appearance. How can one get a feel for what the lens is doing ?

Take moderate to heavily processed images -- some of the images out of here, some of the images out of the DA club, some of the images out of the kit lens club, then remove the EXIF data. Beyond discerning focal lengths between, I bet it becomes much more difficult to tell which came from which lens.

Once you alter color, contrast, or sharpness settings, you've removed much of the fingerprint.. the identity.. of the lens' rendering qualities.

[acoufap]

Take moderate to heavily processed images -- some of the images out of here, some of the images out of the DA club, some of the images out of the kit lens club, then remove the EXIF data. Beyond discerning focal lengths between, I bet it becomes much more difficult to tell which came from which lens.

Once you alter color, contrast, or sharpness settings, you've removed much of the fingerprint.. the identity.. of the lens' rendering qualities.

Showing images in a lens specific forum doesn't mean that people want to show the strength or weaknesses of that lens - IMO. They just want to show images they took with that lens. Some people love contrasty colors, some black & white, some over sharpened images and they show this. We don't need to love these images.

Color adjustment often is nessessary because lighting could not be captured properly. This has not nessessarily to do with the lens you have chosen.

And yes, cheap optics can deliver very well and many people can't see any differences compared to expensive optics - especially at web sized images.

Not showing exif info isn't a hint on fake. Images contain a lot of information besides exposure time, aperture, lens model etc. - so people feel more secure if they don't show them.

I'd conclude people don't want to fake.

If you want to make a decision about a lens I'd recommend to read what different people write about the lenses, get hands on the lens by yourself, mix up all info and your own experience, set your priorities for the decision (always a compromise) and then do what makes you happy.

Besides IQ there are other qualities of lenses to consider. I preferred the DA15 over the DA12-24 just because I liked the metal body and feeling (haptic) of the 15 a lot more. Optically the DA12-24 seems to be better in some aspects - especially corner sharpness.

Sorry - you didn't ask for my advice.

[schnitzer79]

[RGlasel]

Very nice photo, schnitzer79. I hope you didn't have to use your PP skills to get sunlight in the hanging lamp on the right side of the image..

[mee]

Showing images in a lens specific forum doesn't mean that people want to show the strength or weaknesses of that lens - IMO.

I would agree normally. However, this thread is/was showing what the lens can do. Please go back to page 1 to see how this thread started -- a member was looking to see how this lens performed. He wasn't looking for gussied up images but true representations of the lenses performance.

They just want to show images they took with that lens. Some people love contrasty colors, some black & white, some over sharpened images and they show this. We don't need to love these images.

Color adjustment often is nessessary because lighting could not be captured properly. This has not nessessarily to do with the lens you have chosen.

Yet often it isn't because lighting could not be captured properly, but because they wanted to do more than what the lens was naturally capable of doing on it's own. This is why testing sites and even magazines/news such as National Geo and Reuters don't allow such adjustments. Just simple ones... but obviously those aren't the adjustments of which I speak.

And yes, cheap optics can deliver very well and many people can't see any differences compared to expensive optics - especially at web sized images.

Bingo! Esp when one is sending their images through the processing grinder.

Not showing exif info isn't a hint on fake. Images contain a lot of information besides exposure time, aperture, lens model etc. - so people feel more secure if they don't show them.

I'd conclude people don't want to fake.

Agreed. Yet I never claimed the images shown here were not from the lens in question. So, I'm not sure why you mentioned this.. unless you're simply providing an aside.

Btw one can clear the personal data from EXIF and leave the image specific data. This is pretty easy to do in Windows through Windows Explorer (Right click on the image, properties, details, then click on 'remove properties and personal data'.) That is, if they so which to share the camera+lens/image data.

If you want to make a decision about a lens I'd recommend to read what different people write about the lenses, get hands on the lens by yourself, mix up all info and your own experience, set your priorities for the decision (always a compromise) and then do what makes you happy.

Yes, but my impression from the subject title and the OP is this type of thread was intended to show the honest rendition coming from this lens. And to make an educated decision on whether or not to purchase this lens based, in part, on its optical performance.

People's point of views can be wildly different (as this discussion shows ) yet the proof is in the images. From there, we can make a personal decision. It isn't easy in some places to find Pentax gear locally (no one within ~300 miles even bothers with Pentax -- Pentax gear simply isn't sold here). So getting a copy of a lens in the hands isn't an option for some unless bought site unseen or just trust the next photographer on the web's PoV in text is aligned to their PoV.

Having raw data is a safer option imo...

Besides IQ there are other qualities of lenses to consider. I preferred the DA15 over the DA12-24 just because I liked the metal body and feeling (haptic) of the 15 a lot more. Optically the DA12-24 seems to be better in some aspects - especially corner sharpness.

Sorry - you didn't ask for my advice.

True that one cannot test handling online. Yet one can test image qualities online.. But what are the true images, honest to how this lens handles optically? We're likely not seeing that if the images are being run through Topaz or Nik plugins (for example).

And, no worries on the advice.

In any case, no more can be said on this from my PoV on the matter. I just wish we had a text tagging system that was used on honor system to show which images were given the treatment vs which ones were closer to SooC. Then we could easily and more accurately get a feel for the optical nature of a particular lens.. esp when we have hundreds of members -- that is an asset that could be used to benefit everyone.

[schnitzer79]

Very nice photo, schnitzer79. I hope you didn't have to use your PP skills to get sunlight in the hanging lamp on the right side of the image..

Haha. no pp on the lamp, just how it catches the light fm the sun. now that u mentioned it, it does look a little odd. hadnt noticed it myself

[bobbotron]

Tldr; could you guys start a separate thread for these spirited discussions? It's pretty disheartening to have to skim past.

[normhead]

Tldr; could you guys start a separate thread for these spirited discussions? It's pretty disheartening to have to skim past.

What he said ^.

This is a happy thread, for people who enjoy their 18-135 and like to share the pictures it takes, or those who might be interested in the lens and like to see what it can do.

No others need apply. Especially those who think they know what everyone else should do.

[RGlasel]

for people who enjoy their 18-135 and like to share the pictures it takes, or those who might be interested in the lens and like to see what it can do

I'll share this one to show what the lens can do at 135mm, where conventional wisdom says it performs the worst. Couldn't tell you how sharp the corners are, because unless I'm photographing a map, I don't care about the corners. This is uncropped with some smoothing applied, not sharpening.

[boriscleto]