Sharpness . . . Lens quality versus software postprocessing (Page 4): Since before the turn of the century, you have to be both, or are you still stuck in film? To the OP, if you like...

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Mac wrote:

What do you want to be? A photographer or a computer operator?

Since before the turn of the century, you have to be both, or are you still stuck in film?

To the OP, if you like the results you get with your kit lens, then no need to up grade. As far as PP goes, you can work wonders, but, it's always, always always much better to start with the best picture possible. The question is how good is good enough. You can spend many thousands on lenses, but do you really need all that? Only you can answer that question for yourself. 'Tis a simple matter to sharpen, soften, lighten, darken, tint, untint, haze, dehaze and about everything else in post, so if you are happy with what you have now, you're good to go.

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

I think it is a lot like a lady putting make up on. An average lady can improve their looks with a little make up but a truly beautiful lady can add make up and become outstanding. All I am saying is the quality of the outcome is totally dependent on the starting point. The better the glass the better the starting point!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Mac wrote:

What do you want to be? A photographer or a computer operator?

A photographic artist, so both.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

sirlensalot wrote:

Every year the software gets better.
Until then, pro grade lenses do a better job than kit lenses.

But as equipment and software get better the expected minimum level of work also gets higher.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

crazydaddio wrote:

Do not get a high quality lens. Stick to the kit lens !!!!

(I say this only to warn you against that first hit and hook of IQ goodness that comes from your first shot off your new Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. Once you inject that level of IQ and Bokeh into your workflow...the hook is in...GAS and divorce are the only 2 outcomes... :-)

When you use "Quote Reply" in addition to the rest of us knowing what you are referring to, you get a button "(Show Smiles)" that allows you to put in emoji.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

TonyL wrote:

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If an image is 'soft' (considered to be a less hurtful description than out of focus) it's because it's out of focus, to whatever extent. No software on earth can change that

YES YOU CAN!!!

https://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/purse/

bcrawf

dsmeltz wrote:

YES YOU CAN!!!

https://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/purse/

BS. That article is not about photographic issues.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

rehess wrote:

What about the most modern cameras that have an AA filter simulator instead of an actual AA filter?

The AA filter is a separate issue, which also is something that a Sharpen tool can be used to effectively deal with. It isn't all that easy but sharpening can virtually eliminate the effects of an AA filter.

The effect of the Bayer CFA is to make it impossible to have a contrast transition in fewer than 6 pixels. Because of the sequence of RGB sensor filters each demosaiced bitmap pixel is affected by raw sensor data locations up to a minimum of 3 values in every direction. A very abrupt transition from one color or tone value to another takes up at least 6 pixels in the converted bitmap image (and it includes even more if the raw converter program is using a larger matrix to get more accurate colors!)

The transitions can be reduced to a one or two pixel transition by careful sharpening as the last step of processing. Note that this is commonly not done properly because any change in the image pixel dimensions after sharpening necessarily leaves unwanted artifacts. That is one reason not to do "capture sharpening".

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

General note: Today we may not be able to do "real" sharpening through software. In the future, I think they will develop software that looks at your photo and then thousands or millions of other similar photos, runs an predictive algorithm and then actually sharpens the image.

Probably to help cell phone users. Or rather, help sell more cell phones.

bcrawf

dsmeltz wrote:

General note: Today we may not be able to do "real" sharpening through software. In the future, I think they will develop software that looks at your photo and then thousands or millions of other similar photos, runs an predictive algorithm and then actually sharpens the image.

Probably to help cell phone users. Or rather, help sell more cell phones.

That would be problematic in terms of copyright. Maybe the algorithm could just refer the photographer to a good photo of the same or similar subject on Goggle Images.

leftj Loc: Texas

chaman wrote:

Software is not magic. If the lens sucks there is software in the world that will change that. If you are dreaming of finding a software that will equalize an image from a bad lens to the image produce by a top of the line lens, dont waste your time. Want the best optical quality? You need to pay for it.

Hmmm. Confusing post.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

OptiCole wrote:

I know there is an optical difference between a &q... (show quote)

**************************************************************
Not a direct answer about post processing improving things, but take an anology from your own profession. What spectacles are best for your vision? Off the shelf from a supermarket, or prescription lenses as determined by a qualified person? That should give you some guidance.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

bcrawf wrote:

That would be problematic in terms of copyright. Maybe the algorithm could just refer the photographer to a good photo of the same or similar subject on Goggle Images.

I do not think copyright would be an issue at all. There a millions of stock photographs available at a very low price that would serve this function for the software maker. The end user would not be affected at all by copyright issues.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The sharpest lens is generally the most expensive. The sharpest monitor is generally the most expensive. The sharpest printer is generally the most expensive. The sharpest eyes are what you're born with. If you can't see it, you can't process it properly. And we must also consider your inherent artistic vision in the equation.

bcrawf

dsmeltz wrote:

I do not think copyright would be an issue at all. There a millions of stock photographs available at a very low price that would serve this function for the software maker. The end user would not be affected at all by copyright issues.

Not be affected? Well, yes, if he paid up for use of the image(s).