SonyDoug

Kind of a newbie question...

Recently I became aware of Gigapixel AI. I have the 30 day trial now. Pretty amazing to me what it did for the old images I've run through it.

All my lenses are the lower end E mount Sony's on my a6000, purchased used in the +/- 200 buck range. So the question is, does the software ever become a replacement for higher end lenses?

bleirer

I think the bottom line is that there is no free lunch, as the saying goes. Better shooting technique, better post processing skills can allow you to get the most out of the gear you have, so you might be surprised how good your gear is once you have maxed out on technique. At that point a better lens and/or body can make sense.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Think about the lens on cell phones and the pictures they produce. Software is probably the future of photography. That said, what do you plan to do with you pictures? If high resolution prints are the object, a better lens is helpful

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Since any difference in the amount of light going through a lens can be compensated by an exposure compensation, I would imaging that more expensive lenses simply have better clarity and less aberrations.
If AI software can correct for these, there might not be a need for the expensive lenses.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Replace no, compensate for, maybe.

A $200 lens will never replace a $14,000 lens. Period the end. I don't have a $14,000 lens I have a refurbished Nikkor 70-300 kit lens I paid about $140.00 for and shoot on a crop frame camera. Topaz software and Photoshop let me produce 'acceptable' photos when I reach out long distances and to correct some mistakes when I screw up.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Doug, there's no free lunch. Software vendors constantly advertise that their products will make one the photographer they'd like to be. There is no substitute for the developed skill, dedication, and equipment needed to produce a good photograph. They continually attempt to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Software can go a long way towards compensating for the shortcomings of lenses and cameras but there are limitations. When we blow highlights it teaches us that when data is gone it's gone and there's typically no easy way to compensate for that loss but there's usually something that can be done to mitigate the loss. A lens would have to be quite bad before it caused a significant loss of data, but on the other hand a sharp lens will save you no end of effort when it comes to optimising sharpness.

But to answer your question, yes, software can reduce the differences between a good lens and a cheap one but it takes quite a high level of skill to be able to do that. AI may some day remove the need for user skill but it's not there yet. And even when it does come, if we put ourselves in the position of depending on it our learning process will suffer and our skills base will be further reduced.

Also (perhaps less obviously), with reduced input from the photographer the feeling of achievement will be less and the rewards to be got from photography will be less. For some, the end result is the only thing that matters but for others there has to be personal involvement in the process and for those people the assistance that can be got from AI should be used with caution. Don't let AI steal your competence and sense of achievement.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The smile answer is "NO".

In reality, even medium-priced lenses of various focal lengths will probably produce a better image, of any given subject, than an image that is extremely cropped or over-processed, eve from a higher-end lens.

In the old days, we used to say "put it on the negative" rather than trying to re-shoot the job in the darkroom. I still apply that to digital imaging- put it in the file and just tweak it in post-processing. Granted, the remedial possibilities in today's software far exceeds what could be done in an analog/chemical/wet darkroom, however, weh budget, circumstances and equipment allow, it's best to address most IQ issues in the process of shooting.

True enough, your current software is capable of maximizing the results from older files and negatives- in fact, someof the results can be downright astonishing! Basically, you are extracting every bit of existing information from that original that you hadn't seen before. So, just imagine how the software will work with good camera technique and the best glass you can afford. It's likely a good platform to keep!

Just because your lenses are not ridiculously expensive and purchased on the used market, does not mean they are inferior.

The other day I was surfing on Facebook to Check in with my adult grandchildren and came across a quote:
"Every time a photographer is complimented on his or her work and asked what kind of equipment he or she uses, an artist dies"! OK- It's social media stuff but something to think about!

bleirer

It's a wonderful life, photography edition, zuzu.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Software can only manipulate data. Good data from good lens can be polished to be better.
Bad data or worse -no data with bad photography & equipment means we have nothing to work on. Might as well make things up and that would no longer be photography but 3D animation.

Here is a sample image I'm re-posting. The older photo was really torn-up, but since it was created with better equipment & technique, something better was made out of it. The more recent photo was awful to begin with and ended up with less improvement.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-627927-1.html

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

No. but there is more than just the image: there is faster, more accurate focus; lower distortion; less lens flare etc. I know that some of these can be somewhat corrected in post, but not all. As has been said already...better quality in=better quality out. mho

IMSHog

You are only as good as your weakest link. So no.