Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A question to members re. this section of the forum
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lenses capture what they capture.
This is the latent or RAW image that the film/sensor records.
No amount of darkroom manipulation or post processing can change what was first recorded.
This is the raw material that is then worked on to produce an artistic representation that the image-maker/artist wants to convey.
This happens in the darkroom or in PP.
If digital and the camera does the .jpg recording, then the camera does the PP
If digital and the RAW file is changed to .jpg for internet posting, then the software does the PP.
It is not possible to post a digital image without some PP
If the lens was not capable of recording this in the first place then the result would be poor.
If the result is good then the lens must have provided the original raw material to work with.
Like I said before - I wouldn't get too hung up on it
T


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
I'm generally not a heavy handed editor unless I'm trying to save a picture from a weak capture.

But what is heavy processing and what are just basic adjustments? Where's the boundary? Everyone has a different defeinition. I don't consider myself as heavy handed when it comes to processing either. I rarely if ever do any selective adjustment, it's always just basic curves, NR, sharpen, global tonal and colour adjustments to taste, minor straightening and crop if necessary, sometimes ND grad filter, sometimes I add a vignette. Almost never composites (a panoramic stich now and then and perhaps some exposure blending if I feel like it) and the clone and heal tools are used only to clone out dust spots. But despite all that I'm pretty sure many would label my images as too processed.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How about some PP examples? Following are two photos I took years ago -- these are slides I duped with my Canon XS. This first one was underexposed and there was a distracting element in the photo I decided I wanted to get rid of. I'm not sure of the location of this shot -- a pier somewhere in Southern California. The film was Kodachrome 64. The Camera was probably a Canon F-1 and lens a Vivitar Series 1 28-90.

This is the photo after post processing:


And this is the original:


Which do you prefer?

Here's another example of what can be done with some careful clone and replace work. This slide is also Kodachrome 64, and the camera/lens combination is the same. Location was the Redondo Beach Pier (California). The first pic is the post processed one:


And here's the original:


Which do you prefer?

So, what I'm showing here is that often PP can be very useful if done conservatively and if one takes the time to do the PP right. Here's another example of a photo that I did extensive PP on. First the finished result. SCCA club racing at Riverside International Raceway. The red car is a Lola 332 A Sports Racer. I think this slide was Fujichrome 100. Camera was probably a Canon F-1, lens was a Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8.


This isn't the original -- I'd already done some sharpening and contrast adjustment as well as saturation adjustment. But note all the stuff in the background that no longer exists in the first photo.


I've even used HDR on a single slide to squeeze as much information as I could out of an image. Here's an example. I took this shot at sunset at the Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles. It's a Kodachrome slide. I think I was probably shooting with a Canon A-1, which is why the slide was so underexposed. Not sure of the lens, probably the Vivitar 28-90. So anyway, here is the result of an HDR manipulation with some other pp done as well.



And here's the original:


If you look closely at the PP'd image, you'll note that the pp'd image picked up a lot of noise from the processing. I don't really care about that. This is a scene that I am painting with oils on canvas, and I wanted this surreal look so I could try to capture it on canvas. The noise doesn't matter -- I've been ignoring it as I paint the background. So, even though this is an image I don't plan to publish or promote, it still has value -- a purpose.

Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:44 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@OldHand, the "PP" involved when converting raw to jpg is here separated from PP converter settings which manipulate sharpness, contrast, etc., the photo qualities -- the conversion process is not included, although there is controversy over which raw converter is best (for which camera sensor).

@Michael, I like the PP photos better than the "non-PP" photos. I would post the PP'd photos in the Photo Gallery, while the non-PP photos would get posted as lens examples in Manual Focus Lenses.

@Everybody, I think miran says is best (for me):

miran wrote:
I think there are two different things we're talking about. One thing are controlled tests with the purpose of finding a certain lens' weak points, possibly (and preferably) compared to some other lens that is a known quantity (because raw test data doesn't mean much without a reference point). In this case all you need to do is to be consistent. Shoot with a tripod in the same light, the same scene, the same camera, the same settings, and the same raw conversion parameters. It doesn't really matter how much you process the images, as long as you keep everything the same and have a good reference point, that will be enough to judge the performance of one lens in comparison with another. Of course in such tests it doesn't make much sense to overprocess anyway so this shouldn't be an issue at all. To keep things level, you shoot raw and convert with close to neutral settings. That's it. All you need is a base tone curve, white balance (identical for all shots), minimal noise reduction and input sharpening (just to compensate for bayer array and AA filter). Perhaps some exposure compensation if you made a mistake when shooting (but try to avoid that), and especially no lens correction magic. In some cases it might be beneficial to enhance contrast, saturation or sharpness in order to magnify a certain aberration that might be difficult to observe otherwise, but this should be clearly marked and it can only be used to compare two or more lenses.

A completely different thing are "tests" where you're trying to show the potential of a certain lens. Here anything within reason goes, including stronger tone curve adjustments, sharpening, contrast/lightness/colour manipulations, minor cropping, etc. The purpose of this is not to find weak points of a lens and compare to another, but rather maximise its creative potential. Not to evaluate technical aspects of a piece of equipment but rather show what can be done with it if you apply some creativity. Such "tests" in my opinon have a place in the "Manual Focus Lenses" section as long as you make it clear they're not meant to be "scientific" examinations but rather a "show what this or that lens can do". The "MF Galleries" on the other hand can be used for more arty projects where the lens itself doesn't play the main role but is rather just one of the tools that were used in creating the particular piece of art.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
How about some PP examples?


Good idea.

A picture I took with all the settings deliberately set flat on a Panasonic GF1. No PP. Just a random to make sure the lens I'd finally put back together worked okay -



Here's the crop I saw. A little flat and noisy -



And after some monkeying around in PP, a shot that's more what I wanted to project (a new blossom reaching for the sunlight blah, blah..) -



The first crop was for the lens. The second was for me.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your first crop does show a bit more detail, but I prefer the smoothness of the second crop.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Your first crop does show a bit more detail, but I prefer the smoothness of the second crop.



That was my conclusion too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2