[philbaum]

The "one taken right from the camera" is post-processed by a group on engineers who have no idea what your subject is nor which lens you are using.
.

I agree. Ignore post processing if you want, but post processing allows us photographers to do more of the things that painters can do. One of the engineers i hired before i retired, was walking down the far side of the street fronting the Gallery that i'm a member of. He saw a striking sunset image and decided to buy it, only later learning that i had taken that picture. He wrote me an email to tell me about it.

You don't need to buy a lot of lenses to get good images, you can buy just one piece of software and learn how t use it. All of the images that won prizes at last summer's county fair had been post processed. I also recommend composition study and frequent visits to galleries. I often examine paintings in as much detail as the photographs.

[boraclicks]

Being a painter myself, I understand the brush and the painting concepts. But, composition is a different ball game. Painting can be abstract by a huge margin but photography doesn't have that much freedom.

Yes. It is important to learn software as it does add a huge value to the pictures. Digital has its limitations compared to analogue which is made up using these software of course.

Thanks for all the inputs.

[Quartermaster James]

I am coming to more and more dislike the term "post-processing." To my mind it opens up a host of erroneous misconceptions and derogatory connotations.
"Post"? "Post" what, exactly? I prefer simply "processing."

Just as in the film era, we can chose to do our own processing or we can drop our pictures off at the local FotoMat/in camera JPEG engine.
We never referred to making prints as "post-developing."

In photography (as well as many other disciplines), the digital revolution has pulled back the curtain and allowed a great many more people to see the wizard at work. And many people claim to be aghast at this work. (Something about laws and sausages come to mind here.) It is a knee-jerk reaction to recoil from knowledge and retreat into a glorification of ignorance. We fall into this ourselves when we praise the snapshot as inherently "authentic," simultaneously dismissing the art of our art as artifice.

Addendum: sorry for the rambling incoherent thoughts. I really should flesh these out into a proper paragraph or three. But, really, it's nothing that hasn't already been flogged to death in other threads.

[SpecialK]

My question is, what would be the right lens to experiment for creating an artistic shot without much of post processing? It would more of an experiment so I would look for some legacy lenses.

There is no "right lens". All images will likely benefit from PP, or at least changing camera settings from time to time for the various subjects if shooting jpgs. And, what's good for you may not be for others.

It is all...subjective.

---------- Post added 01-16-16 at 01:06 PM ----------

"Post"? "Post" what, exactly?

Post capture.

[DeadJohn]

One more question. People go gaga about 43mm f1.9 Ltd. being a league of its own. What's special about it?

Some of my pics are :

When you first asked about an "artistic" lens the FA 43 immediately came to mind. Many people, me included, think it gives a pleasant result that isolates the subject from the background better than most lenses. Your sample Flickr images show you are getting good results with the 50mm and while the 43 is frequently considered a better lens you might only get a small or no improvement from it.

The DA 15 f4 and DFA 100 f2.8 macro are two of Pentax' best lenses if those focal lengths interest you. They give much better images than kit zoom lenses.

Your 4 images are good. The second, with the actors, looks a little flat. That's probably due to lighting rather than the lens. That photo might improve from post-processing with a contrast boost.

[Quartermaster James]

There is no "right lens". All images will likely benefit from PP, or at least changing camera settings from time to time for the various subjects if shooting jpgs. And, what's good for you may not be for others.

It is all...subjective.

---------- Post added 01-16-16 at 01:06 PM ----------



Post capture.

Capture? By the mind's eye or by pressing the shutter actuator? If the latter, then developing exposed film constitutes "post" processing. But then, that fails our analogy, no?

Either way, all processing is "post" processing (a point on which I think we agree, no?).

[Clou]

A lens by itself is not artistic. Every lens has a different rendering and maybe particular properties.
The point is to use the rendering and the properties wisely and to employ it for your artistic purpose.

Capture? By the mind's eye or by pressing the shutter actuator? If the latter, then developing exposed film constitutes "post" processing. But then, that fails our analogy, no?

Either way, all processing is "post" processing (a point on which I think we agree, no?).

As we are already splitting hairs:
Exposed film has a latent image. You need to develop (process) it to obtain an image.
The raw data (with an embedded jpeg) represents the developed negative, there is no latent image, so any processing done after taking the picture in the digital world is equivalent to the print for film.
The latter is a little more 'post' than developing the latent image, hence the 'post' in the expression.

[MadMathMind]

I am coming to more and more dislike the term "post-processing." To my mind it opens up a host of erroneous misconceptions and derogatory connotations.
"Post"? "Post" what, exactly? I prefer simply "processing."

I think of "post" as the parts where you fix things that are wrong: blemishes, removing that stupid trash can that you couldn't get out of the photo, etc. Developing is things like white balance, contrast, saturation, etc. Post-processing comes after that. But that doesn't have to make any sense to anyone else.

[kh1234567890]

I feel that the discussion is getting sidetracked over the issue of post-processing. The trick is to know when a shot will be boring in the first place - it could be a wrong focal length lens, bad light, bad viewpoint of the subject etc. etc. - and not even bother pressing the shutter button. I do that often.

[BigMackCam]

I feel that the discussion is getting sidetracked over the issue of post-processing. The trick is to know when a shot will be boring in the first place - it could be a wrong focal length lens, bad light, bad viewpoint of the subject etc. etc. - and not even bother pressing the shutter button. I do that often.

Agreed. The only tweak I'd make to that statement is, if the basics of the image are good in terms of composition and creative control, even if the light isn't ideal, I would take the shot - simply because there's a lot that can be done afterwards to rescue it. But like I said, I agree - basically, a bad shot is a bad shot and isn't worth taking.

[kh1234567890]

Agreed. The only tweak I'd make to that statement is, if the basics of the image are good in terms of composition and creative control, even if the light isn't ideal, I would take the shot - simply because there's a lot that can be done afterwards to rescue it. But like I said, I agree - basically, a bad shot is a bad shot and isn't worth taking.

Of course, if it is a shot that will never happen again - Elvis emerging from a flying saucer that had crashed in your back yard - or a place that you are unlikely ever get to again, then I would take it no matter what. But if it is just a shot down your street on a dull afternoon then I wouldn't bother. Some days are like that, you click away but end up deleting most of it because something wasn't right. Just as well that I don't try make a living out of photography.

[Quartermaster James]

I feel that the discussion is getting sidetracked over the issue of post-processing. The trick is to know when a shot will be boring in the first place - it could be a wrong focal length lens, bad light, bad viewpoint of the subject etc. etc. - and not even bother pressing the shutter button. I do that often.

Agreed. My fault. Apologies to the forum.

[mgvh]

I've done more with 'documentary' types of photos (churches, structures, specific landforms), but I've tried to become more 'artistic' in a variety of ways.

• Paying more attention simply to light and dark
• Being attentive to lines and patterns
• Being very aware of composition which includes:
  • Leading lines
  • Foreground, middle, background
  • Rule of thirds and when to break it
  • Making sure there is a focal point for the picture (i.e., the thing I want people to see and to which the composition draws attention)
  • Avoiding distractions in a picture
• Look for the 'story' the picture can convey
• If I'm visiting a site, look for something that captures the 'essence' of that site.

Those are all things that can be done with any lens, but some things I've discovered about lenses:

• I like ultrawide and fisheye lenses. Because of the distortion with them, I have to pay a lot more attention to composition. A slight change in the angle of view makes a big difference in perspective and distortion
• Shooting as wide open as possible. I have a nice Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f1.4 and some f1.7/1.8 50mm lenses. Shooting wide open (or nearly so) forces me to figure out exactly where the focus needs to be because the depth of field is so small. This also helps isolate the subject, so here also is where attention to attractive bokeh comes into play.
• Shoot macro! It really forces me to look at things differently.
• Shoot with just a single prime lens for a while. It forces me to 'see' things from a particular focal length. Each focal length real offers a different view of the world.
• Be directed by a 'theme' - It's amazing how much more I can see when I'm looking for something specific. It can be a color or a shape or a particular object.

With all that in mind, it is possible to be artistic with any lens, but some lenses that have helped/forced me to be more artistic are:

• Rokinon 8mm FE; DA 10-17 FE; Sigma 10-20
• DA 21
• DA 40XS
• One of my fast 50/55mms
• K50 f4 or Tamron 90 for macro

Finally, like QuartermasterJames, I think the (post?) processing is simply part of the picture taking. You can either get a lens engineered to do something specific, or you can replicate the physics when processing.

[boraclicks]

Valuable information from all of your guys. So, it all boils down to the perspective of the person.

Lens may define the style of shot he is taking. All lenses are capable of producing great pictures provided we understand the basics and use them adequately. And it all depends on the style of the photographer taking the pictures.

I posted this question coz I was trying to compare photography with standard painting which has different styles due to different mediums. I thought lens play a considerable role, but it seems, other aspects have equal importance.

Thanks for all the information. I will start experimenting with the existing lenses and see if I can find my style.

[Rondec]

You want a lens that will allow your camera to shoot straight out of camera shots that you are pleased with. I guess the question becomes what do you not like about your current shots? Certainly a different focal length would give a different look. Some lenses are a little sharper than others (although your 50 should be plenty sharp), some are more flare resistant and have more contrast.

Assuming your pleased with the composition of your photos, then the next step is figuring out jpeg settings that please you or, shooting RAW and post processing your images.

If the 50mm focal length feels too long (or too short), then it certainly would be reasonable to look at another prime. I can highly recommend the DA and FA limiteds.