Can we judge a lens by its edited pictures?

[barry]

the RAW that comes out of my EM5 has already been edited according to whatever the lens told the body, and I can't undo it, at least not in LR. Not saying I want to, but just that there's editing being done with out me being able to influence it.

Hi, yes, that's what LR does. Someone said earlier there's a way to override it but I don't use LR so I don't know if that's the case within LR.
It should be possible to use ExifTool or similar to trick LR into not applying any corrections, but I haven't seen that actually done either.

There's a great discussion of this stuff, with example images, at:
Embedded lens profile distortion correction: is it more correct?

 

[Giiba]

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. I see this for quite a few of my lenses (and I shoot RAW only) (the CA correction was ticked by me manually, of course):
View attachment 504886 View attachment 504887

So, the RAW that comes out of my EM5 has already been edited according to whatever the lens told the body, and I can't undo it, at least not in LR. Not saying I want to, but just that there's editing being done with out me being able to influence it.

I cannot say I have ever used LR. I'm surprised there is no option to disable the lens corrections... makes me feel all the better about not getting into the Adobe quagmire

 

[David A]

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. I see this for quite a few of my lenses (and I shoot RAW only) (the CA correction was ticked by me manually, of course):
View attachment 504886 View attachment 504887

So, the RAW that comes out of my EM5 has already been edited according to whatever the lens told the body, and I can't undo it, at least not in LR. Not saying I want to, but just that there's editing being done with out me being able to influence it.

The RAW data is unedited but the RAW file contains the RAW data plus other information is included as metadata. The lens profile which includes correction instructions is contained in the metadata.

RAW processing software has 3 options and there are programs which choose different options:

1- ignore the lens correction instructions completely, show an image derived from the uncorrected data, and leave it to you to make any corrections for the lens that you want using the applications correction features (if any) or using some other processing application;

2- ignore the lens correction instructions, show an image derived from the uncorrected data, but give you the option of having the application apply the lens correction profile or handle lens correction differently as you would do in 1 above; or

3- apply the lens correction profile and offer you no choice. That's what the lens manufacturers want done, and that's what LR does along with some other applications.

If you shoot JPEG, the camera will apply the lens profile corrections during the JPEG conversion and it won't give you a choice about that.


There are differing views on software lens correction. There are those who think that lenses should be optically corrected and that lens manufacturers should never rely on software correction and there are those who think that software correction is a legitimate tool that lens designers can use but there may be those who want to argue about what things are appropriate for software correction and what things should always be optically corrected. Lurking in the background is the fact that optical correction tends to result in more complex lens designs which end up being more expensive and bigger/heavier than lenses using software correction so the decision to optically correct or to use software correction ends up affecting how many people are actually going to buy the lens. If it ends up getting larger/heavier, some people will end up avoiding it for those reasons. If it ends up getting too expensive some people simply won't be able to afford it. In the end lens manufacturers make decisions based on their understanding of their market base but no manufacturer wants to make a lens that won't sell enough copies to make it a viable product line.

I'm a bit of a pragmatist. I buy native lenses and I don't use adapted lenses because I want to be able to use autofocus and auto exposure functionality and you tend to lose that with adapted lenses. If you're using native lenses you choose from what's available. If a manufacturer chooses to use software correction and there's a profile in the lens firmware which gets copied to the file's metadata, I let my processing software use it because that's the way the lens manufacturer intended the lens to be used, and because I find trying to correct distortion issues manually can get tricky. I never managed to learn how to do a good job of correcting chromatic aberration manually in the days when I used Aperture so LR's tick box for that suits me down to the ground. Panasonic apparently give CA correction data in their lens correction profile so that would be fixed automatically during profile corrections in LR. Things like barrel and pincushion distortion are easier for me to judge manually but I'm happy to have that done automatically by the profile. Others want to take a totally different approach. There's never going to be a "one size fits all" solution to the issue of lens correction, where and how it should be done, and the question of whether your processing software should give you the option of applying the lens profile or not applying it.

 

[Julia]

Lurking in the background is the fact that optical correction tends to result in more complex lens designs which end up being more expensive and bigger/heavier than lenses using software correction so the decision to optically correct or to use software correction ends up affecting how many people are actually going to buy the lens.

I did not know that the optical correction by the lens had such a result. Honestly, I never even thought about it -- or about automatically applied optical correction, before this post, because I never noticed it (obviously, since it all happened in the background). Without knowing how the "original" image looks like, I am fairly happy with the base material I get. Of course, if I'd see a non-edited version I might like that more ... I guess I'll see if I can grab a trial of RawTherepee, just out of curiosity to see how the images would look "completely raw".

so LR's tick box for that suits me down to the ground

I agree absolutely. It's almost like magic!

Panasonic apparently give CA correction data in their lens correction profile so that would be fixed automatically during profile corrections in LR.

In my personal experience, shooting Pana lenses on an Oly body, it doesn't get corrected. To my (limited) understanding, you get a CA-corrected RAW file when using a Pana lens on a Pana body. But again, the magic LR tickbox can solve these issues without hassle most of the time.

I buy native lenses and I don't use adapted lenses because I want to be able to use autofocus and auto exposure functionality and you tend to lose that with adapted lenses.

Thanks to another thread in this forum I have, for the first time, started to consider an adapted lens. I'll see if my local photo store has it, and if they'll let me compare it against a native lens with the same FL. Very curious to see actually what a legacy lens (completely mechanical) will produce in terms of RAW files, without any lens profile already applied.

By the way, I want to thank everyone who has chimed in so far –– this discussion has been incredibly informative, polite, and enlightening even if different view points collide. Cannot tell you guys how much I enjoy talking to you, and following other discussions here. Thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts, I really appreciate it!

 

[Giiba]

No trial needed for Rawtherapee, it's freely available open sourced software.

RawTherapee Features

 

[Clint]

...
In my personal experience, shooting Pana lenses on an Oly body, it doesn't get corrected. To my (limited) understanding, you get a CA-corrected RAW file when using a Pana lens on a Pana body. But again, the magic LR tickbox can solve these issues without hassle most of the time. ...

I had never seen the warning/notification that a lens profile has automatically been applied like what you posted, so I checked some of my images. Then I noticed the little Information notification symbol. Checking further every Panasonic lens I have, that I've shot on Olympus bodies does have an automatic correction applied, except the 7-14mm f/4.0. Which is very inconsistent with more images from 10mm - 14mm without an automatic correction, and it is apparently not possible to have an automatic correction applied - yet some of these do.

Back to your original question - All photos are processed, it just depends on what or whom processes the images. I, like others, look at many images, if a lens looks like it might fit my purposes and depending on the cost - I'll either buy it, or rent it, and do my own comparison. So you cannot judge a lens alone by what you see posted. As an example almost everyone of my photos that has a person as the primary subject, will more than likely have clarity set to a negative number.

The post processing of an image is more of an art than a science, and takes a while to learn. LR was designed to try and make post processing easier by using the Basic panel and going from top to bottom and using presets and profiles supplied by Adobe. As processing is an art, I'd be surprised if any two of us on this forum follow exactly the same steps, let alone working from top to bottom in the Basic panel. Keep working at it and in short time you may become very happy with your results. OTH, shooting and using JPEG files has its place and time and is no better nor worse than processing RAW, it's all up to what you like.

 

[ddekadt]

I don't understand the question. What exactly is an "unedited" picture?

(I only mean that to be a little bit snarky. Essentially, I don't think there is any value in evaluating anything other than the final image you produce. That is all that ever matters.)

 

[AussiePhil]

I don't understand the question. What exactly is an "unedited" picture?

(I only mean that to be a little bit snarky. Essentially, I don't think there is any value in evaluating anything other than the final image you produce. That is all that ever matters.)

Once you own a lens I would agree but as per the OP if you are researching IQ based on the various showcase threads then what you get to see are the best of the best (usually) often highly edited and subjectively improved.
This can create a high expectation that the individual may not find achievable
However those images show what a lens is capable of at least
I'm personally blown away by various macro images that get posted and lust develops for a macro lens till reality sets in and I realise I still have heaps to learn in that space

 

[ddekadt]

Once you own a lens I would agree but as per the OP if you are researching IQ based on the various showcase threads then what you get to see are the best of the best (usually) often highly edited and subjectively improved.
This can create a high expectation that the individual may not find achievable
However those images show what a lens is capable of at least
I'm personally blown away by various macro images that get posted and lust develops for a macro lens till reality sets in and I realise I still have heaps to learn in that space

That's right, but that's true of any piece of gear -- lens, body, tripod, flash, software, filters, etc. I don't see any way around this reality: technique, practice, and time are what produce good images. You should base your shopping on what you see, but also on that fact.

 

[Walter]

oldracer said: ↑
Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light.

Hi Julia, just another amateur's remark (in its real sense: one who loves what he does):
Back in the times of my old OM-4 - which was an excellent companion for over 15 years with no problems - and Kodachrome slides you just had to keep your brain cells working for perfect shots. At that time, when I spent hours in the darkroom, I luckily came across Anselm Adams books and his "zone system". It was an eye-opener for me and improved by far my results. As it works with colour photography as well, it made me realize what your camera can do and where its limits are. If I sometimes forget to switch on my brain cells before shooting, I make use of Lightroom to save a slightly wrecked result. But you can't make a masterwork with processing (PS or LR or whatever) if your photo is not perfect as to sharpness, lighting, DOF and - not to forget - image composition (according to rules or breaking them, but conscious of what you're doing). As the German saying goes: you can't turn a plough horse into a racing horse.
I quite agree with some of the above comments: as we're no masters, it comes to 1% of the shots that are GREAT, the others are (more or less) good. And it's a constant fight to get that 1% . Most of the times I'm not quite satisfied with the outcome and think I could've done better. But I prefer not losing my time with processing but spending it on taking photos and getting the best possible "raw material".
As to oldracer's quote: I'm worrying about all three ... at different times ;-))