Lens contrast vs Post contrast?

I understand how in the past and during jpeg days, lens' characteristics indeed played a significant role in the overall picture, but now that most of us take full advantage of RAW and post'ing (forum pun aside) is anything but lens' sharpness even that relevant anymore? Colors can be punched up and quite well, contrast especially, and even sharpness itself made into a razor blade or dulled down a bit.

Thoughts?

SkvLTD said:

I understand how in the past and during jpeg days, lens' characteristics indeed played a significant role in the overall picture, but now that most of us take full advantage of RAW and post'ing (forum pun aside) is anything but lens' sharpness even that relevant anymore? Colors can be punched up and quite well, contrast especially, and even sharpness itself made into a razor blade or dulled down a bit.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I do still think lens characteristics play a big part in photography, I understand you can duplicate most of it in post but why when you can achieve it in camera? Saving you time in front of the computer and giving you more time to be out shooting? Well this is my thoughts.

Scott Murray said:

I do still think lens characteristics play a big part in photography, I understand you can duplicate most of it in post but why when you can achieve it in camera? Saving you time in front of the computer and giving you more time to be out shooting? Well this is my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Well, my example would be - my default for about ALL my raw post is at least a certain % of contrast, - highlights, + shadows. I like my shots to have those basics almost always and the raw file alone and itself simply will not really be as punchy. Or on the off-chance that say, it comes out TOO punchy, my presets will tone it to my liking.

If it comes down to say, manual setting these in, it still takes me about 10-TOPS 15 seconds and the look is pre-applied automatically to the whole batch of shots. I don't sit and tweak every setting for every shot. Nor do I re-size/watermark anything by hand anymore, so post saves me time both on location and in post itself these days.

If say, shooting a jpeg in camera, some punch up the processing via picture control and then the camera adjusts images to your liking, again negating or enhancing a good bit of what the lens provides.

I can see some validity in your statement but only if you shoot subjects within a narrow band of situations and lighting conditions,if these things continually change i dont see how pre set adjustments can be 100% correct for all your images,but then again i dont use LR.

SkvLTD said:

I understand how in the past and during jpeg days, lens' characteristics indeed played a significant role in the overall picture, but now that most of us take full advantage of RAW and post'ing (forum pun aside) is anything but lens' sharpness even that relevant anymore? Colors can be punched up and quite well, contrast especially, and even sharpness itself made into a razor blade or dulled down a bit.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I don't have the experience level like some folks here, but I do believe, that quality gear is much more relevant than anything you do in post processing.

Although I enjoy post as much as shooting, I try not to do it to fix shit. I do it to enhance or create something that can't be done in cam. A shitty shot with a shitty lens is just going to look shitty I don't care what kind of color punching you're doing in post.

An average RAW you can turn into a good shot, a good RAW you can turn into a great.

The quality of what you start with makes all the difference.

To add:

The sharpness of a lens is its ability to resolve detail which implies an average lens will resolve less detail than a good lens. Even with all our sharpening options in post, we can only sharpen what is there. The detail the lens could not resolve is blurred and can't be sharpened.

The same goes for lens contrast (which depends on the ability to resolve detail). It's not just about overall contrast but about every individual aspect of the shot (micro-contrast).

Processing only enhances what is there.

It's not too different from shooting with a CPL. This far it is impossible to get the same result in post.

Every enhancement that can be done in post to a lower quality RAW can also be done to a higher quality RAW which results in the lower always remaining lower in quality. It's impossible to get it "as good" since that would require there to be a limit to how much we can enhance something.


Here's some article explaining lens quality to a degree:

Camera Lens Quality: MTF, Resolution & Contrast

A lens with good contrast, will in general, be sharper compared to an average lens.

I have two lenses to compare - 105mm F2.8 AIS and the kit 18-55 VR-II. The former lens has pretty average contrast and I have to really work on the images in post. In contrast the kit zoom has much better contrast, and I rarely need to adjust it in post.

What would I prefer? Unless the lens with excellent contrast costs an arm and a leg ( e.g. Zeiss 135mm F2), I would prefer (and buy) a lens with better contrast.

Another thing to consider is the work flow of those who shoot 1000+ shots per session - Weddings & Sports comes to my mind. They mostly shoot jpeg and for them post is not a very attractive option. A better lens = better jpeg = shorter turn around time.

mikew said:

I can see some validity in your statement but only if you shoot subjects within a narrow band of situations and lighting conditions,if these things continually change i dont see how pre set adjustments can be 100% correct for all your images,but then again i dont use LR.

Click to expand...

Per usual gig things tend to be pretty steady on lighting throughout - club is a club, motorway is motorway per session and only different when time of day shifts (morning-afternoon, evening, night), etc.

But I suppose I get that quite a few folks refer to contrast as overall quality factor in layman's terms. I personally use sharpness as such term, since contrast itself is a much more trivial factor to me than sharpness/resolution.

Sharpness and micro-contrast usually go hand in hand since the better the lens can resolve detail, the more it can distinguish minimal differences in tonal values.

But the lens itself is only half the story since the cam's sensor should also be able to handle the quality the lens delivers.

J-see said:

Sharpness and micro-contrast usually go hand in hand since the better the lens can resolve detail, the more it can distinguish minimal differences in tonal values.

But the lens itself is only half the story since the cam's sensor should also be able to handle the quality the lens delivers.

Click to expand...

Granted. Whole reason I went for body upgrade 1st, pro-level glass 2nd given how relatively useless fancier pro-level lenses would be on a poor lil 5100.