Post processing pics in Lens reviews

Hi.

Why do some people do a lot of PP in lens review section? That seems unfair for an actual review. or what do you think?

which review site are you referring to? i don't even know if DPreview do PP for their sample shots, most of the time it doesn't appear (to me) to be strait from the camera. but if you're talking about the gallery forums, i would expect that most of them have gone thru some form of PP. nothing wrong with that, its part of the workflow. the fact that DSLR sensors have a low-pass/anti-aliaising filter infront requires that you do some sharpening boosts either via PP or in-camera settings.

I think he is speaking of the archives of lens images, which of course, are not reviews.

TheHoff wrote in post #5462796
I think he is speaking of the archives of lens images, which of course, are not reviews.

True. That was the thread I was meaning. Sorry for my mistake.

Because most people are likely PP'ing their images for the best results (saturation, sharpening, etc.) and show what the lens is capable of in real-world use.

A large RAW file resized down and posted as a JPEG isn't a real demonstration of a lens either. So might as well do your usual PP and post that. If you wanted to see 100% crop or something, you could always ask the poster...

Personally I think there are plenty of review sites out there that shoot charts and pixel peep lenses scientifically enough where if that's what you're looking for, then they are a good resource. I think the image archives here are good for real world examples of these lenses in action and get real owners opinions.

Plus, it's not always about sharpness (most lenses these days are pretty darn sharp save for the usual trouble zones). First of all, no one is going to post a blurry picture. But more so it's about FoV, DoF, basically - results of using the lens. So why not PP it and say, "with this lens, you can achieve THIS."

>>First of all, no one is going to post a blurry picture.

You've been here a long time but obviously you don't open many threads

TheHoff wrote in post #5464550
You've been here a long time but obviously you don't open many threads

Ahh, you're right. I should've known better. What, with all the "is my duck sharp?" posts...

timnosenzo wrote in post #5464354
Personally I think there are plenty of review sites out there that shoot charts and pixel peep lenses scientifically enough where if that's what you're looking for, then they are a good resource. I think the image archives here are good for real world examples of these lenses in action and get real owners opinions.

hehe, please dont missunderstand me. I love all the amazing pictures in the different lens-threads. Really, and I get all your point, bet I was just wondering. Its not reviews as someone mentioned.

Double Negative wrote in post #5464587
Ahh, you're right. I should've known better. What, with all the "is my duck sharp?" posts...

*lol*

Personally, since so much can be done in PP, which helps or not, I'm more interested in seeing what comes straight out of the camera. I can PP it myself, using my own techniques, if I am interested in what it will finally look like. Especially for beginners who are unaware of how much PP can change the look of a file, kinda cheating when it comes to what this lens produces.

^ I agree and totally see where you're coming from. But unless someone posts a full-size RAW file for download, even trying your own PP won't be an accurate representation of the lens' capabilities. Those higher-end reviews out there do provide full-size images, at least (like DPReview).

Post processing (just like "developing" used to be) is simply part of the process of photography, especially (obviously) for those who shoot RAW. In fact, the post processing part is what has drawn me back into photography after a long absence.

I agree with double negative's posts on this topic.

Just resizing for posting on the internet is post processing (significantly changes noise and sharpness). So there is really no way around it unless you want to look at full size pics straight from the camera (at least 10 mb).