gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #8 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses? | |
A few things:
I know that some people (you, perhaps?) are fundamentally bothered by the idea that manufacturers would rely on “digital correction” to captured images rather than producing “perfect” lenses that don’t need correcting, or which require far less correction in post.
But here’s a question. Let’s say that we have a print made using one of the older lenses that required (let’s say) no correction. And next to it we hang a print tht was made using a lens that did require digital correction (or “optimizing,” or whatever term they use). Let’s say that when you look at both prints they look equally good and that you cannot really see any difference between them.
If digital correction results in an image that is indistinguishable from one that came from a lens that did not require it, where is the problem? And if the corrected lens is smaller, lighter, less expensive and produces a corrected image that looks just like the image from the old uncorrected lens… where is the problem?
(Like you perhaps, I began photography in an era when corrected lenses were necessary, since doing corrections after the fact wasn’t a realistic possibility. But things seem to have changed.)
Second, I’m a bit mystified by how this would connect to whether or not you used a raw files. The raw file conversion programs I use (mostly Adobe Camera Raw, but also Lightroom) can automatically apply correction profiles to the raw file conversion process. You can make this a default setting, at which point it requires literally no additional work on interaction on your part.
Third, if correcting things in the raw converter is an issue… do you not alter/optimize/correct other things such as brightness, contrast, clarity, color, sharpening, and more? How is this different?
Finally, there are, in my experience, some outlier situations in which the difference between a lens not requiring corrections and one relying on them may make a difference. For example, with a very low contrast subject that is mostly subtle gray tones, I have sometimes seen slight color shifts at the edge/corners of the frame. Think of a picture of a very, very foggy landscape.
For my part, while I still have an inherited feeling of resistance to the idea that the old notions about necessary lens characteristics may no longer be as relevant as they once were… in the end I think that some of these corrected lenses seem to do a pretty great job.
snegron7 wrote:
Posting this on both Canon and Sony subforums, as I own cameras and lenses in both systems (R6II, A7c, A7iv).
Serious, non-troll baiting question; why bother shooting in RAW if you are using low end, consumer oriented, Non "L" or "GM" lenses? I currently have the following lenses for the above-mentioned cameras I own:
- Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM
- Canon RF 28mm f2.8 STM
- Canon RF 24mm f1.8 Macro
- Canon RF 35mm f1.8 Macro
- Canon RF 50mm f1.8 STM
- Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM
- Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3
- Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM
- Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM
- Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8
- Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L
- Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L
- Canon EF 300mm f4.0L
For Sony:
- Tamron 17-28mm f2.8
- Tamron 20-40mm f2.8
- Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6
(I used to own several other lenses for Sony FE mount but sold them all the first time I sold off all my Sony-related equipment. Several months later I repurchased an A7c and decided to buy just the lenses I used the most which are the Tamrons I listed above).
Lower end lenses like the ones that I own, rely heavily on in-camera computational corrections. When shooting RAW, you see the "true" image recorded with these lenses. The distortion, vignetting, and lack of contrast is extremely visible in the RAW images with these lensed. After spending a bunch of time on PS "correcting" the RAW images, I end up with what the camera JPEG looked like had I shot in JPEG to begin with. Serious question: why waste time shooting in RAW when I'm going to spend hours in PS correcting lens flaws? The only lens I get decent RAW images that hardly need any corrections on my part is with the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8.
Before I get the usual troll (we all know who he is) saying "you need to shoot with better lenses" or "you need to learn how to take pictures", "you're always complaining", etc., understand two things:
1. This post was meant for folks who can contribute opinions on why shooting RAW is still a good idea even though manually correcting lens issues is time consuming and yields results similar to sooc jpegs.
2. If you are that troll, move along, don't participate in this thread. No one likes you anyway.
...Show more →
|
)...