Lens Archive threads - should be unedited images only?

[curiousgeorge]

I've always thought these lens threads are quite pointless in demonstrating the quality of the lenses because almost all will have post processing applied (some quite heavily) that will alter contrast, colour, saturation and sharpness - all factors you take into account when judging a lens.

Surely what we really need is 100% crops with nothing more than in-camera sharpening applied to correct the effect of the sensor filter.

Otherwise aren't these threads all pointless?

[tsaraleksi]

I think it's just supposed to show what's possible with the lens. If you're looking for precise information about the lens, there are plenty of places with numbers and test shots that you can use to make 'objective' comparisons.

[In2Photos]

Otherwise aren't these threads all pointless?
Then don't look at them. ;) They all have Archive in the title. Should be real easy to spot! ;)

[In2Photos]

Jake's post here was for a different reason but it still applies here. I underlined it.

Every time something is stuffed off into no mans land to get it out of your way, that's exactly what happens to it,
No one reads it, and no one participates.

This IS lens Information, so the Lens forum is the natural choice for it,.. and more so, the Archive threads greatest asset is to help reduce what used to be on this forum, and still is on many non POTN forums, the most oft repeated "new threads" on the Photography related internet,..

ie: By having those obtrusive -=Archive threads on the front page of EF, POTN has DRAMATICALLY reduced the number of "show me your 100-400mm" or "Post some XXXmm examples" etc.. threads that you see daily on every other forum ad nauseum, when everyone that is likely to post in them as a reply has already upped the same image a dozen times over in several of last weeks threads asking for the same thing.

If you think the merged and trimmed -=Archive threads are a clutter.. just imagine how it would be, how it used to be,.. before they existed. Seriously.

As _Aravena says, the reason they are up on Page one is because they are active, and thus helping do what we want them to do.
to refer to these valuable threads as clutter? Well now your rubbing me the wrong way. We have lots of Clutter on POTN, and the threads that are designed to help the Newby find what they are looking for,.... AIN'T CLUTTER!
... and we should not attempt to marginalize there impact.

[curiousgeorge]

I think it's just supposed to show what's possible with the lens. If you're looking for precise information about the lens, there are plenty of places with numbers and test shots that you can use to make 'objective' comparisons.
Fair enough, but I don't know where I can find lots of unedited test shots in one place. Seeing shots of focus charts in lens reviews is one thing but it would be great to see real world shots from everyday shooting situations straight out the camera. Here, we're looking at people's pp skills more than anything.
Then don't look at them. ;) They all have Archive in the title. Should be real easy to spot! ;)
No need for sarcasm. If you don't want to contribute why bother posting?

[In2Photos]

No need for sarcasm. If you don't want to contribute why bother posting?
I did contribute. I posted CDS' response to another thread about the Archive from just a short time ago. I am sorry that you didn't like the sarcasm. I guess you are not much for a good time and would just rather complain about a part of the forum that has been very helpful to others. Continue about your merry ways.

[ObiDamnKenobi]

Surely what we really need is 100% crops with nothing more than in-camera sharpening applied to correct the effect of the sensor filter.

Otherwise aren't these threads all pointless?

I'm just wondering how you would decide this. How much sharpening in camera? Which picture style? Normal? Is that the the same in all cameras? For example I've heard "the 5D has a weak AA filter". Does the amount of sharpening applied account for that?

I use the archive thread as much to avaluate focal length and what is possible there as IQ.

[Pete]

The lens archive threads are equally much about what people do with the lenses as about what the lenses can do. This is the difference between photograhpers and measurebaters. I'm far too lazy to attempt to analyse my own or other peoples shots in a physical/pixelated way. I just knows what I likes.

People regularly PP their shots. But rarely is it done to an extent where it will degrade the actual qualities of the lens. Quality always shimes through. And there's always enough unedited sample shots in the archive threads to look for. People are usually up front about if they've not edited them.

[curiousgeorge]

I'm just wondering how you would decide this. How much sharpening in camera? Which picture style? Normal? Is that the the same in all cameras? For example I've heard "the 5D has a weak AA filter". Does the amount of sharpening applied account for that?

I use the archive thread as much to avaluate focal length and what is possible there as IQ.
Yes I know it's difficult, but I think it's safe to assume people apply the right about of in-camera sharpening so the image doesn't look soft, and won't overdo it because oversharpening here will make it look bad.

And yes, neutral/faithful picture style because anything else would be the same as post processing.

The lens archive threads are equally much about what people do with the lenses as about what the lenses can do. This is the difference between photograhpers and measurebaters. I'm far too lazy to attempt to analyse my own or other peoples shots in a physical/pixelated way. I just knows what I likes.

People regularly PP their shots. But rarely is it done to an extent where it will degrade the actual qualities of the lens. Quality always shimes through. And there's always enough unedited sample shots in the archive threads to look for. People are usually up front about if they've not edited them.
Fair point, but I suppose what I was getting at was that there are undoubtedly a lot of people who will look at a very well processed image and assume that it was all down to the lens. Then they might be tempted in buying the lens and may be disappointed if their pp skills aren't as good.

[Pete]

Fair point, but I suppose what I was getting at was that there are undoubtedly a lot of people who will look at a very well processed image and assume that it was all down to the lens. Then they might be tempted in buying the lens and may be disappointed if their pp skills aren't as good.

I agree. To a point.

The fact is that in each archive thread there are a vast amount of sample images. Reading through 6 or 7 pages worth at least is enough to give someone a pretty good idea of the character and quality of the lenses.

I bought my 135L, 85L, 100-400 purely on the basis of the images in the archive thread and wasn't found to be disappointed. I only sold the 85L because I found I didn't have an application for it in my day-to-day photography.

[zacker]

i see his point but also, those achived lens shots are all taken with different bodies too so there isnt any real point NOT to have them be uneditied as im sure pics SOC from a 5D will look better than the same lens on an XT.. as long as a final shot can be crisp, sharp with good contrast and color..i dont see a reason for non edited photos there..

Different bodies
Different shots
Different shooting conditions
Different Shooters..
on and on...

[In2Photos]

The original post in the Archive is below. As you can see it is designed as a place for people to share pictures of particular lens and keep them organized. Not once was it mentioned that the Archives should be seen as an end all, be all of samples to discern everything about a particular lens. I see no need to change it now after 2 years of success.

It sounds to me like you are looking for reviews and samples from non-processed images. This is not what the Archive is. So why should it change? If you want particular examples of a lens ask for them. Even in the Archive threads people are willing to help out with members' requests.
I noticed today that there is a couple of threads of people asking to see pics from a certain lens. I thought it would be cool if there were one thread to lead people to other threads where pics have been taken with a certain lens. Not only could you view each thread but could also add to it when you get your lens. Now I know there are a lot of lenses out there, but it seems like for most here the selection is much smaller. I will start the list with some of the ones from the first ten pages or so today and we can add them here as we build. Also, if you know of a thread where pics are requested or shown, post it here.

[curiousgeorge]

I bought my 135L, 85L, 100-400 purely on the basis of the images in the archive thread and wasn't found to be disappointed...
I can understand that, because most processing is done to landscapes which tend to be taken with wider lenses.

The lenses you mention are on the longer end and I can't imagine much processing is done to those images.

So yes, I accept there are cases where these threads will be useful, so I take back, (to an extent!) some of my point.

[curiousgeorge]

i see his point but also, those achived lens shots are all taken with different bodies too so there isnt any real point NOT to have them be uneditied as im sure pics SOC from a 5D will look better than the same lens on an XT.. as long as a final shot can be crisp, sharp with good contrast and color..i dont see a reason for non edited photos there..

Different bodies
Different shots
Different shooting conditions
Different Shooters..
on and on...
That's fine, as long as people are aware of the factors (other than lens type) that will affect the quality of the image. My point is that most people won't think about those other factors.

[curiousgeorge]

The original post in the Archive is below. As you can see it is designed as a place for people to share pictures of particular lens and keep them organized. Not once was it mentioned that the Archives should be seen as an end all, be all of samples to discern everything about a particular lens. I see no need to change it now after 2 years of success.

It sounds to me like you are looking for reviews and samples from non-processed images. This is not what the Archive is. So why should it change? If you want particular examples of a lens ask for them. Even in the Archive threads people are willing to help out with members' requests.
That's fine, I'm not saying it should change. As I said, I was just pointing out the potential to mislead people.

[tracknut]

That's fine, I'm not saying it should change. As I said, I was just pointing out the potential to mislead people.

FWIW, I agree with you George. At a minimum, I'd like to see folks note whether they've PP'ed an image or not in these lens archive threads. When I'm looking for info on a *lens* as opposed to a *photo* I'm looking for details on how well that lens performs, as well as whether it's useful for the type of shooting I'm planning on using it for. I'm *not* looking to see how well (or poorly) someone can PP an image.

Dave

[In2Photos]

FWIW, I agree with you George. At a minimum, I'd like to see folks note whether they've PP'ed an image or not in these lens archive threads. When I'm looking for info on a *lens* as opposed to a *photo* I'm looking for details on how well that lens performs, as well as whether it's useful for the type of shooting I'm planning on using it for. I'm *not* looking to see how well (or poorly) someone can PP an image.

Dave
Why not? Are you not going to process your shots? I don't think that every shot in the archives has a ton of processing. In fact I would venture to say that most shots probably have very little. I am sure most do the standard corrections. Some go a bit further, but most likely just do the usual. I realize we are assuming this is the case, but reading many of the posts, I think it is safe to assume. A lot of posts start out with "No PP, only resized" or "very little PP done". Sure I wish everyone would include that kind of information. But that is not always going to happen.

[curiousgeorge]

Why not?
Because there are more suitable threads for demonstrating and discussing post processing.

I had a quick look at the 17-40 thread and there were some fairly heavily processed images.

[cdifoto]

Check out www.photozone.de/Reviews/canon-eos if you want to measurbate. They use APS-C bodies though so if you want full-frame samples...tough ****. Make your own or Google for some other tests.

[tracknut]

Why not?

Why not is because if I'm looking (in my case) for wonderful dog photos, I will look in the sports or animals section of the site for shots that folks have posted on the topic. If I'm looking for details on a specific lens, wondering what kind of images it produces, and its quality, I will tend to look in a lens archive for such information, and not be upset to not find a bunch of dog photos there). It does annoy me to find a post in an archive claiming "look how sharp this lens is!" and then later in the thread see a follow-up stating "well sure, I sharpened it in post"... WTH?

It's just how my take on using the forum goes, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to it, I just happen to be in the same camp as George on the subject.

Dave

[cdifoto]

Set everything at zero and all lenses look like ass.

[bohdank]

I don't bother looking at any of the lens archives to find out what a lens can do or not do. Total of waste of time and usually misleading. Extremely rare for anyone to post a shot that has trruly not been touched by sharpening.

[bohdank]

Set everything at zero and all lenses look like ass.

But a bad lens will look more ass ;)

It's the only way to compare apples with apples.

Resized down shots, for web, are also useless for judging IQ. The only usefull comparison can be made is if, at least a 100% crop can be downloaded, with no sharpening anywhere in the workflow.

[cdifoto]

But a bad lens will look more ass ;)

It's the only way to compare apples with apples.
Nobody ever said the Lens Archive is for drop-your-pants-and-look-at-the-pixels entertainment.