Photoshop or Lens?

[JIP]

I think it's simply a matter of what you need based on what you have, and with only the kit lens I would agree with most of the above that you need a better lens more than PS. If you had a few good lenses it would be a different story.

Dave

True, how can anyone but you determine what you need.

 

[DSLR noob]

I hate sounding like a cheap person or a pseudo-photographer but I have to say. I can use photoshop to replicate the effects of many lenses. A new lens can only do what it is designed to do.

 

[usayit]

And photoshop can only manipulate information captured by the lens... it can't conjure up a good photo from a bad one. Just like it can't conjure up information lost or not captured.

Exactly what "effects" do lenses have? or perhaps you meant filters.

From one Mazda driver to the another... you can't create more power (area under the curve) with just air. It is a balance between fuel and air.

It is a balance between talent, equipment, and post production (wet or digital darkroom).

 

[Sideburns]

Lens. You can't make sharp out of soft with photoshop...and you can widen aperture in photoshop...

Get whatever focal length you want...but I'd suggest getting a prime with a WIDE aperture. 35, 50, 135....whatever...

 

[Alex_B]

I can use photoshop to replicate the effects of many lenses.

some effects, maybe, but not basic image quality.

E.g. you cannot take an image at 1/1000 to freeze motion blur with a slow lens in miserable light ... unless you go to very high iso. the noise from very high iso can only be reduced in post processing with considerable loss in image quality/detail information.


just one example of many.

 

[spyder]

i would go with a new lense and buy paint shop pro xi for 30 bucks (download trial then buy to get the deal). it does everything photoshop does and is more intuitive. i have photoshop cs2 and paint shop pro xi, and i use psp almost exclusively.

in other words, there are cheaper (yet equal) alternatives to photoshop, but nothing can replace a good origional picture

 

[elsaspet]

LENS.

 

[sabbath999]

If you were asking what I would do, I would say LENS. But that is me.

 

[sabbath999]

Another thought, Photoshop Elements is good, cheap (under $100 US) and you can do a lot with it and still have a bunch of money for the lens.

 

[TCimages]

i would go with a new lense and buy paint shop pro xi for 30 bucks (download trial then buy to get the deal). it does everything photoshop does and is more intuitive. i have photoshop cs2 and paint shop pro xi, and i use psp almost exclusively.

in other words, there are cheaper (yet equal) alternatives to photoshop, but nothing can replace a good origional picture

+1 !!!! Same here

 

[skieur]

i would go with a new lense and buy paint shop pro xi for 30 bucks (download trial then buy to get the deal). it does everything photoshop does and is more intuitive. i have photoshop cs2 and paint shop pro xi, and i use psp almost exclusively.

in other words, there are cheaper (yet equal) alternatives to photoshop, but nothing can replace a good origional picture

I would not say equal alternatives, but the point is that you need some sort of postprocessing program. Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements are certainly good, if you don't quite have the skills for Photoshop CS3 or want to do a speedy job that does not have to be absolutely perfect.

In purchasing a lens, you have to be careful in choice. Several decades ago I bought a 200mm telephoto and then discovered that all the shots that I sold were taken with a 28mm wide angle. Speed is also essential and I would not buy a lens slower than f 2.8.

skieur

 

[Antithesis]

My buddy is trying to convince me to get a decent high-speed lens saying that my photography in anything but perfect light will vastly improve. Judging from all the blurry pictures I got from my last vacation I'll have to agree with him. Photoshop can make good pictures look phenomenal but can't do much for bad ones. I'd get the lens and worry about post processing when you have something to process.

 

[Buszaj]

Even though I don't have an SLR yet, I would say go for the lens. Like others said, the program doesn't truly make the picture, you do. Besides, you can get CS3 by other methods.

 

[Nikon Nick]

Lens all the way. You don't always have to edit your photos for them to be good, but more lenses means you have more equipment to broaden your photography itself.

 

[JIP]

It's just an opinion, as requested in the OP.

Dave

I was agreeing with you that what the OP should get should be based on need not everyone's opinion.