Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Photo Analysis
Chromatic aberration
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Jan 8, 2012 10:11:23   #
Ragarm
 
You'll find instructions in this article:

How to Reduce Chromatic Aberration in Photoshop CS2

Read more: How to Reduce Chromatic Aberration in Photoshop CS2 | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5950757_reduce-chromatic-aberration-photoshop-cs2.html#ixzz1isbhgPiz

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 11:01:43   #
tainkc Loc: Kansas City
 
Ragarm wrote:
tainkc wrote:

When it was regular size, the birds were much smaller and you could not see the c/a. But it doesn't matter. I have tried to find the sweet spot on numerous occasions. And it does not matter if I am zoomed out all the way or not. I always have some or a lot of c/a.

I am not worried about the focus too much since I was shooting through a chain link fence. At normal viewing everything appears nice and sharp. Remember, I blew these up quite a bit.

What, if anything can I do while shooting before post processing to reduce or eliminate this problem on this lens?
br When it was regular size, the birds were muc... (show quote)
I shall post more.


What makes you think you are dealing with c/a? Even when I blow up your images super large, to the point where I'm looking at square pixels, I see only a little evidence of color fringing. Check out the example of c/a at http://toothwalker.org/optics/chromatic.html to see what c/a would look like.

What we have here, in your photos, is artifacts caused by digital processing. You will have it regardless of the lens. Try it. Pick a scene that contains a few sharp, high contrast edges. Shoot it with a couple lenses. Blow up the images drastically and you'll find the edges fringed like this case you present. This effect will not be lens dependent.

However, you might see color, especially purple, fringing in images from some lenses, and that will vary from lens to lens. That is c/a.

You've got a nice lens there.
quote=tainkc br When it was regular size, the ... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 11:14:11   #
Coops Place Loc: Chicago Area
 
I sometimes use a little canon S3 (point and shoot). In certain conditions it it is terrible with Chromatic Aberration. I use PP CS5 all the time with great results, but using the chromatic aberration function in lens corrections is sadly lacking for me. Knowing me, there is a good chance that I'm missing something in CS5, but I've looked everywhere to make the function work better. Anyway, if I have a problem with chromatic aberration, sometime during the editing process of PP, I will save the picture, making certain that I save in the PSD format. Then I close the photo and then open it in Paint Shop Pro X4. When it comes to a tool to fix chromatic aberration, Paint Shop has the slickest tool that I have ever seen. After fixing the chromatic aberration issue, I make certain to save the photo in PSD format and now open it back in PP. My work done in Paint Shop is now shown as a new layer in PP with chromatic aberrations corrected.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2012 11:31:10   #
photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee
 
Coops Place wrote:
I sometimes use a little canon S3 (point and shoot). In certain conditions it it is terrible with Chromatic Aberration. I use PP CS5 all the time with great results, but using the chromatic aberration function in lens corrections is sadly lacking for me. Knowing me, there is a good chance that I'm missing something in CS5, but I've looked everywhere to make the function work better. Anyway, if I have a problem with chromatic aberration, sometime during the editing process of PP, I will save the picture, making certain that I save in the PSD format. Then I close the photo and then open it in Paint Shop Pro X4. When it comes to a tool to fix chromatic aberration, Paint Shop has the slickest tool that I have ever seen. After fixing the chromatic aberration issue, I make certain to save the photo in PSD format and now open it back in PP. My work done in Paint Shop is now shown as a new layer in PP with chromatic aberrations corrected.
I sometimes use a little canon S3 (point and shoot... (show quote)


And that in a nutshell is why it's so good to have editing options ... well done.

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 12:39:01   #
RMM Loc: Suburban New York
 
I think Ragarm has made some very important points. If you're going to shoot with your lens maxed out for close-ups, you should be shooting RAW at the highest possible resolution. Maybe you can't shoot as fast, but you'll get the maximum number of pixels to work with, and that's important if you want to crop and blow up. Shooting in JPEG may allow you to capture more images of a moving object, but you're giving something up. Trade-offs, as someone else already said.

The first image is 8-1/4 x 5-1/4 at 240 ppi. For prints, you usually want 300 ppi or higher. A pro photographer friend of one of my clients recommended 360 ppi. If the images you posted have already been post-processed, there's no way to tell how much of the CA comes from what you did earlier.

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 13:07:10   #
catgirl Loc: las vegas
 
photogrl57 wrote:
tainkc wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
Sorry had to finish my train of thought :)
Most cameras allow you to view the histogram of photos in camera which will allow you to adjust the wb for your next photo under the same conditions.
However when you run into this and want to correct it in photoshop ... look at the histogram ... you can see all the color is in the midtones ... nothing on the dark side (left) or the light side (right).
If you slide the arrows just below it over to where they meet the black part of the histogram it will bring everything back into the correct exposure .. the center arrow is for the midtones ... I rarely have to adjust that .. only if after fixing the outside .. if its too light or too dark I might slide the midtones a bit until it looks right to me ...
Then after adjusting the histogram if you need it sharpened still I'd do the high pass filter thing.
Sorry had to finish my train of thought :) br Mos... (show quote)
Thanks. I too look at the histogram in lightroom, which is where I begin my pp. On a bright day such as this, it is easy to be off on the bright side. I use the recovery slider to bring things more in line. But you gave me a thought. What if I set the ev levels higher in the camera to begin with since this is where the problem originates? In the original photograph, the whites weren't blown out. Pretty close though. I store all of the originals untouched so I can go back and try what you suggested. Thanks for your input. What is cool is I know I can bug you if I do have problems I can not solve in cs5. Lol.
quote=photogrl57 Sorry had to finish my train of ... (show quote)


Absolutely hun I'd be happy to help in cs5 ... it's my favorite editing software out of all of them.
quote=tainkc quote=photogrl57 Sorry had to finis... (show quote)

where do you live? I am coming over for cs5 lessons I don't live far from you even pay you

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 13:26:50   #
photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee
 
LOL catgirl ... I'd be happy to help talk you through any process you are trying to do in photoshop ... just PM me with anything ... :)

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2012 15:00:53   #
pfredd
 
Ragarm gives the best insight/advice seen in this forum.
In CS5 Layer>Matting there is a defringe command which only sometimes helps. C/A is by definition inherent in the lens. Shoot RAW, that editor offers 'lens correction '. Check the pull down there to see your lens listed (most are). Use it! That command does a lot more too.
If not available from working other than RAW. really noxious C/A might be helped by selecting the purple, blue, or green then desaturating and lightening

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 16:38:52   #
catgirl Loc: las vegas
 
photogrl57 wrote:
LOL catgirl ... I'd be happy to help talk you through any process you are trying to do in photoshop ... just PM me with anything ... :)

you want to start at page 1? just joking

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 16:42:37   #
photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee
 
catgirl wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
LOL catgirl ... I'd be happy to help talk you through any process you are trying to do in photoshop ... just PM me with anything ... :)

you want to start at page 1? just joking


LOL we can :)

Reply
Jan 8, 2012 20:49:02   #
ALYN Loc: Lebanon, Indiana
 
Never saw a one-winged Gull before ! ;-) ALYN

Reply
 
 
Jan 16, 2012 15:42:09   #
English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL
 
tainkc wrote:
.../...
Could you post the original vs the already modified versions???

Reply
Jan 17, 2012 04:40:18   #
tainkc Loc: Kansas City
 
English_Wolf wrote:
tainkc wrote:
.../...
Could you post the original vs the already modified versions???
I will try to find them. It should be easy since I catalog everything. I am know that I have even better examples of what I am griping about. I shall pick a couple out and post them.

Reply
Jan 17, 2012 14:27:15   #
tainkc Loc: Kansas City
 
tainkc wrote:
English_Wolf wrote:
tainkc wrote:
.../...
Could you post the original vs the already modified versions???
I will try to find them. It should be easy since I catalog everything. I am know that I have even better examples of what I am griping about. I shall pick a couple out and post them.
Better yet. Here are a couple from yesterday. Untouched.

#1
#1...

#2
#2...

Reply
Jan 17, 2012 15:15:21   #
RMM Loc: Suburban New York
 
Have you tried shooting in RAW? And have you tried a reset to factory defaults? I'm wondering if the camera is introducing the aberration in the process of converting to JPEG.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.