[Vasyl]

I know, I know the answer is obvious, especially for those with LBA and those who wants to look different. I was there too and probably am still there sometimes..., if LBA comes it catches seriously ...
Why was I caught by it? I thought that receiving a good picture with great colors and sharpness depends on the lens quality.

Some time ago I bought Focal 135 F/2.8...pretty unusually looking (as I thought that day, at least I could not find any picture of that copy)..so I spent ~20 USD to buy it...there was another reason to do that, it was in exacta mount, so it was challenging to convert it into K mount...OK, I leave this description because I am afraid I will jump into another topic...
So, the lens was converted and mounted on my camera, with 10 iris blades I was so thrilled to start taking pictures...well...I was impressed by blurry looking pictures and of course disappointed, so the lens was dismounted and put on a shelf...today I tried it again, because the color rendition was great as I remembered, + I got more experience with PPing, so I tried this lens again...below are some pictures, some of them PPed, some (well actually just one with a lantern) is not...
When I was doing their PPing I noticed that the amount of time which I spent was not more than to PP pictures taken with let's say with SMC Pentax FA 50mm F/1.7 or Super Takumar 50mm F1/4...and that is why the question popped up.
What is more important in today's digital life having a good lens or knowledge and software how to PP?
Actually, if you are familiar with PS or any other photo editor you can make any effect (bokeh, tilt and shift etc) on your picture w/o spending money on an expensive lens.

The above thoughts are about the lenses in range from 18mm up to 300 mm and non professional photography (small size up to 2000 pxls/inch. I do not have 500 mm so I can not say anything about them, I am guessing for such type of photography a really good optic is needed.

Would interesting to hear your thoughts on this.
Do we really need an expensive lenses or do we need a good software to PP?
The pictures:
The lens on K20D

From my car on a traffic light through the windshield, PPed in Photomatix and PS 6.


Through the windshield same PPing:


Had held 3 shots PPed in Photomatix and PS 6


No PPed, just a little bit sharpness and contrast:


Thank you
Vasyl

[hks_kansei]

Editing on the computer annoys me, so I'll always choose the nicer lens.

I used to do a lot of image editing on the computer, but nowadays I tend to avoid PP as much as I can.

My reasoning is that I want to force myself to become a better photographer, and for me that means getting an image perfect straight from the camera.

[GDRoth]

I enjoy PPing, but always try to start with a perfectly exposed image............

[baro-nite]

PP is a double-edged sword. With good PP skills you can turn good shots into great images. But it can become a crutch, as one attempts to turn mediocre shots into acceptable images. PP skills and tools will change over time; original captures won't. Get the best shots you can, and keep the originals so that you can revisit them later as your PP skills and tools improve. Good quality lenses that you will use are a lifetime investment, as are the skills for getting good shots. Software and computers are ephemeral.

That said, another aspect of the software/lens equation is that software-based lens correction can turn a good but problematic lens into a great performer.

if you are familiar with PS or any other photo editor you can make any effect (bokeh, tilt and shift etc) on your picture w/o spending money on an expensive lens.

No, you can't. That is, you can't achieve the same results you can with an appropriate lens (or filters, or lighting). You can fake some of these effects, to a limited extent.

[Clicker]

As in film days reasonable tools (camera+lenses+film) were needed to capture the image where hopefully exposure and composition were acceptable...then we'd move into the darkroom to tweak the image for show...the same principles apply in the digital age.

[atupdate]

This discussion is meaningless unless each person declares whether they shoot in raw or jpeg. If you shoot in jpeg, you are post processing your pictures via the camera settings you choose for sharpness, saturation, and contrast. If raw, then all pictures are processed on the computer.

I shoot in raw and I find that images from my best lens (Sigma 10-20) require less tweaking (saturation & contrast mostly) than my kit lenses. However, it takes very little effort to bring my kit images up to the level of my Sigma 10-20. I don't have any of the Very High End Glass, so I really can't comment on that end of the discussion.

No matter which lens you use, the better the light, the better the image.

Tim

[Vasyl]

No, you can't

Tilt-shift effect is a piece of cake...bokeh takes time to make, but doable too...

[baro-nite]

Tilt-shift effect is a piece of cake

An effect that mimics tilt-shift, for certain photos, yes. Duplicating the full range of possible tilt-shift effects, possible perhaps but not at all easy in many cases. (The new Samyang t/s 24mm is going to be a big seller if it is optically good and reasonably priced.)

[Vasyl]

An effect that mimics tilt-shift, for certain photos, yes. Duplicating the full range of possible tilt-shift effects, possible perhaps but not at all easy in many cases. (The new Samyang t/s 24mm is going to be a big seller if it is optically good and reasonably priced.)

Thank you! Agree.
Will it possible to see a difference between a real one and a fake.
Just quick examples with one step of tilt shift effect.
Focal 135mm

Vivitar 70 -150mm

Vivitar 70 - 150mm


SMC Pentax 18-55 mm

[Ratmagiclady]

RML's Rule One Of Photography: "Get The Shot."
(There's also a rule that says, 'Nothing is Ediot-proof.' )

It depends what work you do, but I'd rather have an interesting or good lens with this digital stuff, and a program that gets it out there.


Simple fact is, the more the digital 'precision' gets easier, 'common,' even, the more I save my old instincts for precision for film shooting, and the more I want to take my digital stuff and find the texture of he medium, how it changes light and time and motion and the like. It really depends what you care about. Like your mailbox shot there with the old lens, I'd probably use PP to try to make that even weirder. I'm realy old school about film, but with digital, I just want to take it all over the place, cause things that used to make me really sharp a long time ago people expect their Iphone can do and mostly fon't notice the difference.


I'd add a new rule to my rules of photograhy, that wasn't necessary before: "Produce Photographs. In my case, Hardcopy."


What you really need to do, in all this, is worry less about the gigabytes and whatsits. Find what energizes *you,* personally, out of what you have. This is no longer a technical competition, and will be less so by the year. Choose the stuff which *you* can use. Even if some'll tell you it's the *wrong* stuff. The differences are becoming less and less by the year right before our eyes. Get the shot. Make the art, or whatever you want to make.


No blanket answer here. Choose your tools, and whatever you have to hand, strive to know them and *use* them. Then you won't have to ask in that way, you know?

[Vasyl]

Thank you, Ratmagiclady!
Actually, I was curious to hear peoples' opinions and their preferences.
Thank you for sharing!
Have great shots!