|
All images © Bob Atkins
This website is hosted by:
|
 Author
|
Topic: Is it lens quality or photo shopping! (Read 6058 times)
|
Tallyther
Junior Member
Posts: 27
|
I look at some of the award winning photos on fliker by people like K. Lee and they are fantastic. But then I see he's using a basic lens that costs less than $1000 such as the Sigma 50 - 500mm at 500mm. His photos are fantastically sharp and detailed yet the ratings say its a good lens but nothing spectacular. So the detailed pics are not reflective of the ratings on the lens comparison sites. I am considering what longer lens I can affort to get detail. I have a 70-300mm non "L" Canon lens. But frankly Lee's pics look better than what I often see with those using a $5000 to $8000 Canon lens. So if it's the photoshopping that's making up the difference what do I need? Is there really a difference in the ability to get more detail in more expensive software? I know if you didn't capture it, you can't manipulate it!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
You can't tell much from downsized images on the web. You can tell a lot from looking at 20" x 30" prints, but you rarely see many of those presented side by side form different lenses.
If all you need are 8x10 prints of web images, just about any half way decent telephoto and some degree of appropriate sharpening in Photoshop or something like Nik sharpener will be good enough.
At web size, just about any lens can look great, so Photoshop skills probably outweigh lens quality for that application.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tallyther
Junior Member
Posts: 27
|
Thanks again Bob! Between the two responses in 2 different forums Ii get the point. But most of the sharpness differences I've been concerned about are showing up on monitors at the 10" X 12" displayed size. I've done some excellent sharp high contrast pics with my Canon 40D and 70-300mm IS USM non "L" lens. But it appears my failing (about 80%) has ultimately been lack of proper planning and setup and then of course lack of cooperation sometimes with a subject I thought was going to be still longer. I'm not suggesting 80% total failure but a high % of not getting excellent pics. I must be more patient and set up the circumstance to create the ideal high contrast background. Lack of experience and dedication has been my real failing .... not the equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
