how much of it is the dslr and how much is in the ps skill?

thank you for taking the time to say that russian.

i don't take the time to declare my "alleigance" either as i feel it's irrelevant. today and tomorrow i will shoot all day and all night as my application for a funding grant is due on thursday. i will be processing raw and inverting tanks. in the end they all will be images, part of a large and important project in which not one single reviewer will give a lick as to the capture medium.
 
I haven't read all of this thread because of it's length, but to jump right to an answer for the original question, I'd say both equipment and post processing can make a big difference. But assuming proper skill and equipment was used in the capture, less post processing would be needed. Realistically that doesn't always happen and often times (definitely not always) poor technique and even poor equipment can be covered up with excellent post processing.

I switched from a Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens to a Canon 450D and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens, and with out any change in my skills, I noticed a significant improvement in the image quality. I'm not sure how much of it was the lens, how much was the body, and how much of it was Canon's RAW convertor, but the equipment made a difference for sure. The images are much easier to process to get the results I want and when done right, they exceed anything I ever did with the D70s. Equipment is not everything, but we'd be fools to pretend it doesn't matter.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom