radiojohn

Interesting question.

My new (old stock) Olympus OM-D "starter" mirrorless camera came with two "kit" lenses. I was very surprised how sharp and contrasty they were. It occurred to me that, when using OEM lenses especially, there may be a lot of interaction that triggers "fixes" inside the camera regarding light fall off, barrel and pincushion distortion, etc. Adapted quality lenses did not seem to perform as well.

Perhaps your software is doing some similar "fixing" of images of lesser quality. Is this artificial in camera or out? That is the debate.

We used polycontrast paper and filters to improve prints from black and white negatives. Was that artificial?

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Good glass on a good camera can take beautiful photos but in the hands of a bad photographer, can also take lousy photos. Post processing can heal some bad photos but not all of them. The final product is dependent on the glass, camera, post processing and the photographer. In many cases, the skill of the photographer is most important.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

I would say No. Software can do some great things, but it will do better with better data. Better data comes from a quality lens on a quality body. My doctor says I will need cataract surgery in 2 or 3 years. When I get it I will be supposed to see better and without glasses. Same body, but better "glass". My glasses help to correct my vision and allow me to overcome most of the deficiencies of my eyes, but they can only do so much.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I think that is a complicated question. Photography is a combination of camera (pixel quality, larger than smaller being better) the use of what the camera can do (setting the light meter to spot or what, light range etc.). Your capabilities (setting the camera up correctly and you visual capabilities FRAMING ETC.). Then come the software (the capabilities of the software and your abilities total advantage of all of it).
Now what is a great lens or a cheep lens. Cost of a f2 or a f5.6 if you shoot at f8 or f11, I don't know again that depends on classification of cheep or cheeper.m Again what do you do with the picture, print 4X6 a 30X40 or for a news paper with lousy pixels and not much quality or on the computer.
I did not answer your question but, thanks for giving me food for thought.

TKT Loc: New Mexico

I think the key question here is what is the end use of the image. If for family scrapbooks one can probably get by with the less costly optics (look at some old tin types for adequate detail). But for gallery presentation, only the best will do.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Better lenses make better pictures, generally speaking. One detail that's been ignored is that contemporary lenses are, quite generally, much better than the ones available when I started buying lenses in 1960. For example, I bought a Leitz 135 mm Hektor (I can't recall it's maximum aperture). It worked pretty well on my Leica IIIF, but I wouldn't be surprised if rather inexpensive 135 mm lenses today are far superior to that lens. One thing I'm sure of: in the right hands, cheap lenses can make super images, with or without AI software, no matter how many angels can dance on top of a pixel.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

TKT said in part: "But for gallery presentation, only the best will do."

In a gallery we stand 3-4 or even more feet away from the print. What is the resolution of the print? What is the spread of the ink on the paper? Was it a color laser? What is the light intensity? Like the classic paintings the story, composition, and lighting is every thing as long as the museum gallery is correctly positioned with correct intensity, and correct spectral spread.

The above factors will mute the differences in the digital images taken with lenses of moderate and hi price [quality?]both having the same mm same f-stop.

In short, there are many stops along the way between glass and viewed image. Can you see the difference on your 50 inch TV?

--------------
Cataract, The difference between young and old eyes is that the plastic that nature gave us fogs in the sun and we see more clearly when the lens is replaced with a new one.
---------------
PS: phrases like "no free lunch" cloud the thinking as do many analogies, we should realize that it is simple and is not "Rocket Science." If one falls in the trap of agreeing with the analogy then one accepts the premise attached to it with out clear analysis.

radiojohn

It's the old Ansel Adams vs. Andy Warhol debate. How many "fine art" photos were shot with a Diana?
In the music recording industry there is the saying about recorded music. "If it sounds right, it is right."

I'd suggest that "If it looks right, it is right."

TKT Loc: New Mexico

Dpullum you are correct! It's been my experience that there are more "pixel peepers" viewing gallery prints than family members looking at scrapbooks. Maybe it's related to the "price" of a print in a gallery? A lot of scrapbook prints are OK as long as you can recognize the person(s) in the image. I've seen cases where the more costly a gallery print is "the sharper it should be"! Thank God this is not the case all the time. There are too many cases of over-sharpened digital prints floating around.
TKT

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

AI will never compensate for poor or lack of composition, subject etc.

drzuvela Loc: Croatia

In fact, it exist long time already. We don't need software at the first place It is only a math.
Photography we are used to is still analog presentation of light, pixels, dots.
More pixels, more colors, more deep...... more anything.... we are getting sharper, more contrast, more dinamics....

There is different way of presentation called vector presentation. There are no size limitation in order to present vectorised perfect sharp, perfect colored, graphon.
When we able to present photo based on different data then light itself, we will able to make blinds see. We will be able to see in the dark, in the past, in the future without any lens.

avflinsch Loc: Hamilton, New Jersey

I wouldn't say 'never' on this. I would not be surprised to see AI which can correct composition sometime in the next 1-3 years. For lack of a subject, we already have AI which can create realistic looking faces - take a look at https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com for examples. It isn't that far of a stretch to apply the same techniques to landscapes.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Can a better "something" help yes. It can help. We constantly argues photography an art or a technical challenge. So one great lens and a poor vision (art or art understanding) or an adequate lens and a good vision is better. A sure thing is a poor lens is no good and a great lens in the the hands of an incompetent person are doomed to a poor outcome.

BebuLamar

Sure! You can have a software that creates the images from scratch without any lens or camera.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

The OP's question is: "So the question is, does the software ever become a replacement for higher end lenses?"
A lot of the responses are suggesting that software can not make a better picture. But that is NOT the point. Software CAN serve to improve picture sharpness, and Topaz AI and Topaz Gigapixel AI are proof of that. The best fixed focal length lenses of 20 years ago are still very viable today, especially when shot at say f/5.6 or f/8.Software can certainly improve the technical quality of a photograph. Making an artistically good or great photograph is a different matter.