Lens vs Post Processing

W

wazy15

Messages
283
Edit My Images
No
I have being having a good look at some of the images forum members have been able to achieve from photoshop/lightroom/etc and it makes me ask the question how much does a good lens make a difference to an image if someone can do so much in post processing to make it look a million times different? I appreciate Photoshop won't vanish motion blur and relies on a certain amount if sharpness in an image before being worked upon, but still, is it better to buy an amazing lens or invest time in software in this day and age?
 
You cant polish a turd as they say.
The lens is one of if not the most important factor.
Yes, photoshop and the like can help make a good image a great one, but without a decent lens to take it in the first place..

I'd always prioritise lenses over software if I was budgeting for new stuff.
 
I have upgraded all my lenses to L glass and it makes a big difference to image quality, something that neither PS or LR can do.

I think the old adage you cant polish a turd springs to mind. :D
 
wazy15 said:
I have being having a good look at some of the images forum members have been able to achieve from photoshop/lightroom/etc and it makes me ask the question how much does a good lens make a difference to an image if someone can do so much in post processing to make it look a million times different? I appreciate Photoshop won't vanish motion blur and relies on a certain amount if sharpness in an image before being worked upon, but still, is it better to buy an amazing lens or invest time in software in this day and age?
Click to expand...

As software continues to develop so do the results from it and there's no doubt that some people can produce very impressive images through processing.

For me though what you need to be thinking about is how do you prefer spending your time, sat at a PC perfecting your processing or out and about perfecting your photography skills - both have the potential to produce great results.

Simon
 
Lens for me. You need a decent image in the first place.

You cant polish a turd!!
 
I guess post processing shots from a cheap lens could disguise some flaws. If you intend to do extreme post processing and make it look a million times different I'd say its probably less critical to have the best lens upfront.

Investing in the PP end of the equation will ultimately cost you more time/money to process each image (assuming the cheap lens still was able to capture the shot) in the long run.

So would you rather spend the cash on software and invest time/money on each shot or spend the money on the lens and aim to get it close to perfect straight out of camera?

Its got to be the lenses (y)
 
My sentiments are the same. I prefer having the right gear in hindsight. I was fiddling around with an image I took several weeks ago in lightroom and got great results but was time consuming. I have a good lens now, just blew some money on a 70-200 VRI II :D
 
To a degree, it depends on what you're going to do with the shot. If it's going to appear on a website, four inches wide at 72dpi, for a lot of images it will be just about impossible to tell if was taken on £1500-worth of lens, or a fifty quid clicker.

But, just try blowing it up a bit...

There's a phrase that springs to mind (some of you may have heard this):

You can't polish a turd.
 
Last edited:
wazy15 said:
I have being having a good look at some of the images forum members have been able to achieve from photoshop/lightroom/etc and it makes me ask the question how much does a good lens make a difference to an image if someone can do so much in post processing to make it look a million times different? I appreciate Photoshop won't vanish motion blur and relies on a certain amount if sharpness in an image before being worked upon, but still, is it better to buy an amazing lens or invest time in software in this day and age?
Click to expand...
What response where you expecting to get on a forum of fanatical SLR/lens owners where the default answer to almost any question is 'buy L glass'? ;)
 
SixToes said:
What response where you expecting to get on a forum of fanatical SLR/lens owners where the default answer to almost any question is 'buy L glass'? ;)
Click to expand...

or perhaps a decent non-L prime ;)

It all depends on what exactly you're trying to do.

My sister in law is producing some stunning images with a camera made at home with a shoebox and a Voigtländer projector lens.

No, it's not going to be any use if you're trying to capture the action at a Premiership game, but it's a fabulous way to do photography in my book.

edit: I've been having a lot of fun recently with thirty year old Canon FD lenses on a Panasonic G2. Within the limits of the G2's sensor, a 50mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.8 that cost me about £60 each are producing results as good as a 70-200 f/2.8L that set me back nearly 25 times as much (and it all packs into a laptop bag that goes with me to work, which the 'L' with a 5D would never do).
 
Last edited:
Oh, and as a wild card, I'd add that a developed sense of composition and some imagination are ultimately far more important than either your choice of lens or any PP.

A tack sharp, beautifully exposed and post-processed boring photograph is still a boring photograph.
 
Assuming all photography skills being up to scratch though, the lens is what gets the picture. Some of the images I've had from my 85L just could not have been done with a poorer lens and pp'd.

I would always go for a lens if I had the choice.
 
jon ryan said:
To a degree, it depends on what you're going to do with the shot. If it's going to appear on a website, four inches wide at 72dpi, for a lot of images it will be just about impossible to tell if was taken on £1500-worth of lens, or a fifty quid clicker.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Dont use any pp work on my photos,i alway tried to get the best lens i can adford.

But i adgreed no matter what len you use or pp a turd still a turd :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top