Can post processing make up for less than stellar lens quality

And sometimes, you just can't get a decent photo from well regarded lens. I had that experience with a 400 f/5.6 prime. Based on the photos I've seen where it has been used, on several different bodies, I thought it would be a step up from my 70-300L. For some reason, I could never make that 400 shine.

I only had it a few months and I did buy it used from a great camera store... but when I got a 100-400 ii, my photographs took a giant leap forward. I had a similar experience when I got my 1D IV. That combination has provided me countless hours of enjoyment.

Along the way, I've been able to improve my post processing skills as well. I don't have to do much, thankfully, but a little bit of post processing can make a pretty big different in the end result.

Yes and no. L lens used during crappy lighting condition would produce crappy looking photos. Average lens used with the right lighting conditions will produce stunning result....

My all time favorite shot...the lighting and the contrast. Taken with a 15 year-old AF D Nikon zoom, 28-105 f3.5-4.5. Used price is about $120.

Hey...how about a shot taken with a 50 year-old Yashica Mat..medium format film baby...heheheheheh....​..

This shot has over 200 likes on my Flickr page..

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zkhx​Fp

Great question.. I believe it depends on the objective of "make up" . If objective is getting art-gallery print, getting bokehcious image etc perhaps software cannot. However if objective is to impress others (clients/peers etc) via website, I believe PP has much bigger impact than the lens..i.e. Instagram. Software has its limitation, it may not match 100%, however it can come close to acceptable output.

Gone are the days of GIGO . Now a days , you feed computer garbage, what comes out via machine learning are amazing.

mzondeki wrote in post #18086683
Great question.. I believe it depends on the objective of "make up" . If objective is getting art-gallery print, getting bokehcious image etc perhaps software cannot. However if objective is to impress others (clients/peers etc) via website, I believe PP has much bigger impact than the lens..i.e. Instagram. Software has its limitation, it may not match 100%, however it can come close to acceptable output.

Gone are the days of GIGO . Now a days , you feed computer garbage, what comes out via machine learning are amazing.

Nah...wrong analogy. The lens here is like the garbage compactor. The garbage in the scene itself. Just because you are using a high end garbage compactor (the lens in this case), it does not mean your shots would be great. You may have beautiful looking garbage...is still garbage (ie, shooting at a brick wall with your $4k lens won't make your brick wall any more stunning). GIGO still applies today....

Your cyclists would have visited my trash bin.

chauncey wrote in post #18087282
Your cyclists would have visited my trash bin.

The truth hurts....ouch. A brick wall is still a brick wall....regardless it was shot with a $4k lens... The rule never changed.

The garbage in-garbage out maxim is often echoed when discussing post processing, but of course, it also applies to gear. The most expensive camera equipment is, in terms of creating a compelling photograph, effectively useless if the photographer sucks.

chauncey wrote in post #18087282
Your cyclists would have visited my trash bin.

Why?

sjones wrote in post #18087301
Why?

Heheheh.....maybe he couldn't handle the truth??? If you suck, no amounts of high end gear would make you a good photographer.

For the OP, focus on the scene itself and the subject, period. Remember GIGO..... You take photos of crappy stuff, you get either beautiful or ugly looking crappy photos. Then, figure out what lens you need, within your budget, to best capture the scene and the subject. Maybe your current lens's strength is to shoot at F8 and away from the sun. You can get great lens without spending beyond $1k. First party lens isn't a must. The current Sigma and Tamron offering are pretty good. Then, you should focus on your raw editor and how you PP your shots and what looks you are aftering.

If you know your PP and using the right software for you, you can even make more stunning photos captured with your above average lens...than someone shooting with a $4k lens but isn't skillful enough in their PP.

TooManyShots wrote in post #18087275
....(ie, shooting at a brick wall with your $4k lens won't make your brick wall any more stunning). GIGO still applies today....

I don't know about that. A few years back I compared the kit lens to the 17-55 and I must say, the 17-55 rendered stunning bricks.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=3528219

gjl711 wrote in post #18087344
I don't know about that. A few years back I compared the kit lens to the 17-55 and I must say, the 17-55 rendered stunning bricks.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=3528219

I think today's kit lens comes from a long way. They are more than acceptable. Nikon makes good kit lens though. I never like it because they look "funny."

Heh! Speaking of brick walls here's a shot with the "old" Canon macro:

Tony, the bronc...I'm disappointed that you didn't stack that image.