Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: jd1566 on September 30, 2005, 02:50:02 am
-
Are certain lenses becoming more irrelevant as software takes over their functions?
Barrel and pincushion distortion
Straightening converging verticals
defocusing out of focus areas
creating selective focus areas..
Just some of the innovations that programs like Adobe Photoshop have given us.
Have these features killed lenses like the Canon Tilt and Shifts? Has the need for large aperture lenses diminished as selective focus can be achieved on the computer screen (85mm f1.2 and the likes)? Are the expensive primes a thing of the past? Considering that manufacturers like Canon seem to be adding ever more zooms to their line-up and discarding low volume primes, it would appear that that is the case..
What is everyone’s take on these issues? Any feedback from you, Michael?
-
Are certain lenses becoming more irrelevant as software takes over their functions?
Barrel and pincushion distortion
Straightening converging verticals
defocusing out of focus areas
creating selective focus areas..
Just some of the innovations that programs like Adobe Photoshop have given us.
Have these features killed lenses like the Canon Tilt and Shifts? Has the need for large aperture lenses diminished as selective focus can be achieved on the computer screen (85mm f1.2 and the likes)? Are the expensive primes a thing of the past? Considering that manufacturers like Canon seem to be adding ever more zooms to their line-up and discarding low volume primes, it would appear that that is the case..
What is everyone’s take on these issues? Any feedback from you, Michael?
You can't implement tilt in software, though you can do a shift. You must be right that software can take a so-so lens and in some respects turn it into an okay one. If CA is excessive, software comes to the rescue. But you can't correct for poor edge sharpness, or low contrast, or flare/ghosting, or regions that are out of focus. Similarly you can't implement DO or IS in software, or get a closer focus. What will happen is that manufacturers will consider some flaws more acceptable than others. Distortion and CA are probably less serious than off-axis softness. Curiously by all accounts the new Canon 24-105mm F4 lens is very sharp but with lots of distortion and CA.
Leif
-
Do I get a prize for my 100th post?
Thanks for feedback. Also, anyone out there using these specialist lenses and then creating the same effect with a "normal" lens + software manipulation, and comparing the two results?
My question stems from the fact that I've always lusted after the 24 T/S from Canon, but am managing the converging verticals problem quite well within photoshop. The learning curve is going to cost me $1000 to find out if the T/S option offers vastly superior results, or not! So users out there please respond!
-
Do I get a prize for my 100th post?
Thanks for feedback. Also, anyone out there using these specialist lenses and then creating the same effect with a "normal" lens + software manipulation, and comparing the two results?
My question stems from the fact that I've always lusted after the 24 T/S from Canon, but am managing the converging verticals problem quite well within photoshop. The learning curve is going to cost me $1000 to find out if the T/S option offers vastly superior results, or not! So users out there please respond!
I've read that DXO technology will be incorporated in phone cameras to improve quality. It will probably happen in "normal" cameras but I don't see it replace T/S lenses (or even the 85 f/1.2).
As for the 24mm T/S, you could rent this lens and see if you feel comfortable with it. You could then compare results from the T/S lens and the same photo processed in Photoshop.
Francois
-
Do I get a prize for my 100th post?
Thanks for feedback. Also, anyone out there using these specialist lenses and then creating the same effect with a "normal" lens + software manipulation, and comparing the two results?
My question stems from the fact that I've always lusted after the 24 T/S from Canon, but am managing the converging verticals problem quite well within photoshop. The learning curve is going to cost me $1000 to find out if the T/S option offers vastly superior results, or not! So users out there please respond!
100 posts gets you a dancing Martian girl. Congrats!
(http://www.kulon.net/images/funny/girdancing.gif)
-
Wow Bob, thanks a zillion! She does lap(top)dancing so well!
As for renting.. I live in deepest darkest Africa.. I just have to hope that someone recovers the camera kit from the National Geographic Expedition that's been missing :-)
It's the only way we get new equipment 'round here..:blues:
-
...As for renting.. I live in deepest darkest Africa.. I just have to hope that someone recovers the camera kit from the National Geographic Expedition that's been missing :-)
I feel for you! Anyway, in Africa 400m & 500mm lenses are probably more common than 24 TSs!
Francois
-
For software to correct lens issues, I suggest you have a look at Dxo Optics Pro 3.0. As long as the body/lens combo you have is one that they have support modules for, you will get a remarkable improvement in image quality. They have some issues with their user interface, but once you get past this, the software rocks!
Andrew
-
I'm using DXO Optics Pro 3.0 and the other suggestion for this product is to get the fastest machine possible ... the results are great but boy does it take a while - batching and going for dinner is a viable approach!
I just use the lens correction stuff with my D2X & DX/VR lenses and as Andrew says, it rocks! Save the files as DNG and then you can still treat them as 'corrected' raw files in PS CS2.
Don't Olympus do some image processing with their E series lenses/body to correct aberrations etc?
-
All else equal, getting the final image with the lens is better than doing so in software. Correcting converging verticals in software means you cannot use 100% of the sensor to create the final image; you are always doing some cropping. With a lens that allows movements, you can accomplish the same objective and still use 100% of the sensor; no cropping is necessary. In the same vein, correcting CA and other lens flaws will only get you maybe 80-90% of the way to what you could have with a perfect lens. It's like noise reduction; the software tools do a great job removing noise without artifacting, but you're still better off using ISO 100 instead of ISO 1600 if ISO 100 gives you a fast enough shutter speed to get the job done.
Don't get me wrong, software tools like Focus Magic, Neat Image and Photoshop's Lens Correction filter are extremely useful, but there are limits to how much software processing can improve images. You're always better off improving the raw digital capture by improving sensor or lens quality/flexibility rather than trusting software enhancement alone. Otherwise everyone could buy the consumer-grade coke bottles and software, and get results just as good as someone using L glass.
-
All else equal, getting the final image with the lens is better than doing so in software.
One qualification though; perspective correction with lens shift/rise/fall requires a larger image circle, which gets cropped differently according to the shift selected. With wide angle shift lenses, the extra angular coverage needed tends to decrease lens quality so this part of "all else" is not equal.
But I have no idea how that balances against the resolution loss from convergence correction (keystoneing corrrection) in software.