RustyBug Online Upload & Sell: On
|
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Should people do the post processing to show the lens capabilities | |
The same can be said with regard to which sensor is being used as well and likely even more important is the contrast level of the lighting. I can take a killer image with a crap lens in great light and it look better than a great lens in crap light.
As long as disclosure (ask if you need to) as to whether it is RAW, SOOC (which still doesn't tell you the setting variance) or PP'd is available, I think it is honest and fair to present either for final product or for lens performance.
One thing I've learned is that different lenses can benefit from different processing approaches as one size does not fit all. Add in the lighting and sensor variables with different sooc algorithms and ... YUP ... it can be a challenge to discern how much to attribute to the lens vs. some other piece of the puzzle en route to the final image ... particularly with things like color/contrast which are highly subjective and variable though camera settings.
Imo, if significant CA and distortion have been corrected in PP, I think it prudent to note such. Much like it is prudent to note if an image has had NR applied when asking about sensor performance. Otherwise, it would seem likely to consider them "reasonably" the same as sooc/raw (profiles notwithstanding) for their aberrations.
Short answer ... it depends.
I've not posted much imagery in the Alt Forum in recent years (which is very lens oriented), but when I have, I typically annotate PP'd vs. SOOC vs. RAW. In the Photo Critique Forum, it is not lens oriented, so it is mostly assumed that we areonly talking about finished product, which is understood to include "photo finishing" or PP.
I think too ... it depends on the context of the thread. In the "Alt Flower" thread, I expect those to be finished products, PP included. In lens specific thread, I expect those to annotate RAW vs. SOOC vs. PP'd so we know if we are looking at corrected or uncorrected images.
|