takowasa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #3 · Lenses that "require" software correction. | |
I'm still having difficulty understanding your reasoning. I mean, I know what you are saying, but am not understanding why. For example, is it as if a camera metered lighter than you like, but was spot on with, say, -1/3 EV, you'd similarly not use that camera? Or is it more like you feel it is like AI manipulation of the photo making the result something that was created in software rather than recording an actual scene, thus no longer "pure"?
If the latter, then I understand where you're coming from, but disagree. Lens designers use software to determine the shape, placement, and composition of the lens elements. Lenses "requiring" software correction simply use digital corrections after the fact rather than analog corrections before the fact, where by "analog", I mean "physical" in the form of larger, heavier, or more lens elements in a design.
So, if this is correct, then I understand why someone would prefer a lens that didn't "require" software corrections in the same way that someone would prefer a handwritten letter over an email or a phone call over a text. Some prefer that the technology be something tangible so that they relate more with it, which matters more than the end result. And, if software is used to "manipulate" the photo, you want to be in charge of what the software is doing rather than the software doing its thing behind closed doors beyond your control, in the same way many feel safer driving than flying because they're in control of the car but not in control of the plane, even though, per mile, planes are way, way, way safer than cars. However, software beyond your control is used to design the lenses, and you weren't in control of that, either.
But, like I said, I disagree (presuming my understanding of your objection is more or less correct). Whether an additional lens element is used to correct of distortion (and that lens element is designed with computer software) or the distortion is corrected after the fact with software based on knowing exactly what form the distortion takes based on the other lens elements, is all the same to me, so long as the IQ is still there (or, perhaps, even better, as the after-the-fact software corrections can do a better job than the compromises made in designing additional lens elements to make the analog corrections).
Still, it would be an "agree to disagree" situation -- I understand that point of view and can't argue with it, I just have a different opinion. But, again, that's presuming that I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, and I'm not sure that I am.
comotionfilms wrote:
Because I like seeing how a lens looks, without artificial corrections. I enjoy the vignette and weird edge bokeh and other flaws the same way I’d rather not use software or AI driven sharpening solutions. Other people do, and that’s great, it’s just not for me. I often enjoy weird lenses, like the newish Cooke SP3s, for instance. I’m not opposed to using corrections, but if I turn off corrections and I don’t like the lens, then that lens probably isn’t for me. And when I’m looking to shoot with a perfect lens, like the Sigma 40mm, I don’t mind the extra weight, as I’d rather not make compromises.
...Show more →
|
