[Na Horuk]

I don't really like the distortion correction in PP. It just doesn't look right, especially if the camera is not perfectly level and parallel to the subject.
And I don't like distortion in lenses, either. I think its the biggest weakness of DA 21mm and even DA 35mm f2.4 (two of the primes I use the most)

So I try to take photos in a way where distortion is minimally noticeable. I don't want a lens that is 100% super corrected (like.. Sigma Art series, I guess) but some corrections are needed. Its up to the designer which corrections are needed and how much, as each correction brings its negatives (at least lens size and cost, but possibly optical artifacts as well)

[Steve Grosvenor]

It's about the image. Everything is post-processed. JPG conversion is post-processing. Adjusting the light intensity through a negative is post-processing.
I don't understand it either. Highly manipulated HDR images straight from the camera are somehow OK, but adjusting the exposure and saturation aren't? I suppose if you want all your subjects to look like they're in a sauna because the sensor is very sensitive to red...but I'll keep knocking that saturation down a little in the red channel or just desaturating images a bit overall.

Lol. Our local camera club created a 'new' category for wildlife photographs which have not been post processed, including underwater shots. Yet they allow the use of filters to be used on the camera to correct hue.

The argument I guess is that using the right filter when taking the picture demonstrates photographic skill, while applying the filter in post is a case of attempting to correct a bad photograph.

[Amarony]

One thing I've always wondered about lens profiles in Lightroom is do they correct the lens quality or built-in distortion to the point of removing any of the pixie dust? If you have any of the trinity limited lenses for example, do Lightroom users typically use those profiles or do they counteract some of the benefit of those unique lenses?

[Digitalis]

An appropriate analogy might be cosmetic surgery.

A highly regarded member of the fashion and beauty industry once told me, beauty is easier to achieve through cosmetics than genetics.

IMO I think the lower geometric distortion is in a lens design the better. The Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED has perhaps the worst distortion @ 18mm I have ever seen in a consumer lens, but it sold like hot cakes because it covered a very convenient focal range. As long as distortion is at or under 1% i'm happy.

Though bear in mind there is more to distortion than barrels and pincushions: mustache distortion it problematic in a unique way, the best example of it I have seen is from the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM.

[leekil]

The Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

...needs a nickname.

[Rondec]

Color to me isn't a huge deal as that is pretty easily fixed/tweaked in post. Geometric distortion is a bigger deal, particularly if you are shooting architecture. Lens corrections are better than nothing, but they aren't a free lunch. Flare is a pretty big deal as it isn't always easy to fix. If it is relatively small and you can steer it to a part of the image where you can clone it out, that's one thing, but often it isn't that easy to take care of.

I will say that super zooms are made possible by in camera lens corrections and Lightroom lens profiles. Without those, a lot of people would have to give them up due to the weak areas of the focal range.

[TonyW]

One thing I've always wondered about lens profiles in Lightroom is do they correct the lens quality or built-in distortion to the point of removing any of the pixie dust? If you have any of the trinity limited lenses for example, do Lightroom users typically use those profiles or do they counteract some of the benefit of those unique lenses?

AFAIK Lens profile creation handles geometric distortion, vignetting and Chromatic Aberration - so I suppose it could remove unique features depending on who made the lens profile.

I do not know what method Adobe use in house but the do produce Adobe Lens Profile Creator (a free download). I have not felt the need to go this far as the Adobe profiles seem quite good to me. Creating an accurate lens profile does not appear to be a trivial task
Adobe Lens Profile Creator -User Guide

---------- Post added 11-02-17 at 05:38 AM ----------

Lol. Our local camera club created a 'new' category for wildlife photographs which have not been post processed, including underwater shots. Yet they allow the use of filters to be used on the camera to correct hue.

The argument I guess is that using the right filter when taking the picture demonstrates photographic skill, while applying the filter in post is a case of attempting to correct a bad photograph.

I can understand the need for some ground rules in competitions and I suppose that anyone entering wants to win or at least be recognised and should read and comply with those rules. So I guess that options are to not enter if you disagree with the rules or make it plain to the judges your grounds for objection.

Truth is photographers have manipulated images since the dawn of photography, adding clouds, vignetting, sharpening by building masks, selective bleaching and toning to correct exposure issues - the list goes on. To me these are all part of photographic technique and a major part of a photographers skill set.

What about the poor guy here, won a presitigious landscape photographer of the year award plus £10,000 cash only to have it taken away from him when it was discovered he had added some cloud to a bland sky. No intention to cheat but just not read the rules about post work

Photography competition winner disqualified for 'too much Photoshopping' - Telegraph

[cyberjunkie]

I will say that super zooms are made possible by in camera lens corrections and Lightroom lens profiles. Without those, a lot of people would have to give them up due to the weak areas of the focal range.

I'm with you.
As soon as I had in my hands an Olympus micro 4/3 camera, with its ridiculous plasticky kit zoom, and I saw the quality of the pictures it made, I felt that the only way to achieve such results was using heavy in-camera lens correction profiles.
Nowadays the correction of certain aberrations can be offloaded to software, leaving lens designers free to concentrate on different issues. Apart resolution and microcontrast, lens size is an important constraint, and I also think that a design rather insensitive to mis-spacing would be very welcome, given the abysmal construction of modern time objectives. When you start using GLUE instead of retaining rings it's no surprise if some examples are much worse than others.
I know nothing about complex zoom designs, but I know that a double gauss is quite impervious to incorrect spacing, while a simple triplet is very sensitive to minimal variations.
I'm sure some modern designs are quite insensitive to questionable construction/assembly.

I believe that some vintage lenses would benefit from (unfortunately unavailable) good correction profiles, but only to a certain extent, because they were designed to be decently corrected for vignetting and geometric distortion. Only CA was not a big problem with film, though I've seen some old objectives showing almost no fringing on digital. Even some very old ones from the sisxties or early seventies.

Cheers

Paolo

[normhead]

Lol. Our local camera club created a 'new' category for wildlife photographs which have not been post processed, including underwater shots. Yet they allow the use of filters to be used on the camera to correct hue.

The argument I guess is that using the right filter when taking the picture demonstrates photographic skill, while applying the filter in post is a case of attempting to correct a bad photograph.

Ya, there's absolutely no skill in post production. I understand their point. <sarcasm>.

They do know that taking commercial photography courses you spend as much time on post production as you spend behind the camera?

There are a number of issues here.

The image you take into post production should be flat. It should have the highest possible dynamic range allowing for maximum detail. Contrast saturation etc. should be added in post, on the big screen where you can see what you are doing, not on the little back camera screen,

Even the best post production technician has to have a great file to start with to produce great work. You can make a bad image acceptable in PP, but you can't make it exceptional, because the same PP techniques applied to a properly exposed image still gives you a much better result.

Such camera club type rules as stated above are generally "level the playing field " type regulations. You can't force those who haven't become proficient at PP to learn PP, but you can level the playing feel by asking those who do to refrain form using it. But since those of us who believe every image is going to post production, we shoot a specific way to accommodate that. Taking away the ability to PP means we have to change who we shoot. Personally I wouldn't take the time to learn how to use the jpeg setting on my camera, just so I could shoot for a camera club competition. If they want to see my work, they want to see my work, not some watered down version of it.

Some of the worst advice I've ever seen handed down from a podium was from a guy who introduced himself saying " I wasn't trained in photography, I came up through the camera clubs." His lecture was informative for anyone recently graduated from a point and shoot. But half the audience were DSLR shooters, and they were all yawning.

[Rondec]

Lol. Our local camera club created a 'new' category for wildlife photographs which have not been post processed, including underwater shots. Yet they allow the use of filters to be used on the camera to correct hue.

The argument I guess is that using the right filter when taking the picture demonstrates photographic skill, while applying the filter in post is a case of attempting to correct a bad photograph.

The odd thing here is that every image has been post processed. The only question is if you are letting the camera choose the post processing parameters in a somewhat heavy handed way, or if you do that post processing yourself. I don't know what you call a jpeg engine, except for an "automatic post processor." You can choose to bump shadows, protect highlight, increase saturation, or even make an image monochrome with the camera's jpeg engine. And if you have a recent vintage lens, you can add the lens corrections to that.

I don't want to rant, but I really do think that people make a bigger deal out of image being "straight out of camera," than they should. Post processing won't fix a poor photo, but it can definitely bring an excellent photo up to a stand-out level.

[kh1234567890]

I don't want to rant, but I really do think that people make a bigger deal out of image being "straight out of camera," than they should. Post processing won't fix a poor photo, but it can definitely bring an excellent photo up to a stand-out level.

+1

I could never understand what the 'straight out of camera' people are trying to prove. To me post-processing, be it digital or waving your hand under the enlarger, is a part of creating the image, which will hopefully capture something of the look and feel of the moment when it was taken. If geometric distortion, CA, vignetting or whatever get in the way, then I do not have a problem with correcting them. Which, fortunately, is easy nowadays because of the amazing computational power at our fingertips.

[Nicolas06]

Good Point... it is a trend which I don't understand beyond photography competitions which 'forbid' post processing of images.

You get the effect instantly, you don't have to spend time on PP to get it. If you are a pro for example, the time spent doing that PP add to your cost for getting the shot.

Even if you are not a pro, if something can do the effect you want instantly, it time well saved.

[Steve Grosvenor]

You get the effect instantly, you don't have to spend time on PP to get it. If you are a pro for example, the time spent doing that PP add to your cost for getting the shot.

Even if you are not a pro, if something can do the effect you want instantly, it time well saved.

Very good point. Especially with regards to those which are inconsistent or which can not be 'automatically' corrected in post - such as lens flare, sharpness, etc.

But many distortions such as tint, vignetting, etc. (as well as certain previously desired traits, such as softness) don't take extra 'time' to correct in post... at least with new lens where the lens identification is included in the raw file. The corrections can be applied automatically as part of conversion from raw.

It is not unlike the transformation which happened in the audiophile world with speaker equalization. Speakers rather than having to be able to perfect sound, only had to produce clean sound, as things like tonal balance many could be corrected in processing.

[Nicolas06]

Very good point. Especially with regards to those which are inconsistent or which can not be 'automatically' corrected in post - such as lens flare, sharpness, etc.

But many distortions such as tint, vignetting, etc. (as well as certain previously desired traits, such as softness) don't take extra 'time' to correct in post... at least with new lens where the lens identification is included in the raw file. The corrections can be applied automatically as part of conversion from raw.

It is not unlike the transformation which happened in the audiophile world with speaker equalization. Speakers rather than having to be able to perfect sound, only had to produce clean sound, as things like tonal balance many could be corrected in processing.

Adding softness in post take time as well as vigneting. And it typically doesn't look as good as vigneting/softness done by a soft lens that may just be an older 50mm design near max apperture rather than the expensive and heavy resolution perfect modern 50mm that cost 10X more and weight 4X more !

The old 50mm give control over that by setting different apperture. Extremely sharp, a bit of dof at f/2.8 and up. Softer and smaller dof at f/1.4 or f/1.7... And this type of lenses with AF cost about 100-200€/$...