The power of 36mp
Jun 19, 2014 21:25:53 #
This example was taken with a D800e with a 200mm micro lens attached.
Jun 19, 2014 21:58:55 #
Jun 19, 2014 22:05:20 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
MadMikeOne wrote:
I am not even going to try to use the "quote ... (show quote)
D800E ... D800E ... D800E ... D800E... :lol:
Jun 19, 2014 22:10:13 #
amehta wrote:
D800E ... D800E ... D800E ... D800E... :lol:
I hate you!
It's a good thing I don't know how to get my text in color or include those smilies (or frowns) or you would be in some serious trouble just as soon as I am cured of my G.A.S.
Mike
Jun 19, 2014 22:16:25 #
Ok...so let me get this straight...only the D800E can do this?
I'm trying a new test with the new Photoshop CC 2014
Thoughts?
I'm trying a new test with the new Photoshop CC 2014
Thoughts?
Original file 4608 x 3456
(Download)
Upresoultioned in new PS CC 2014 and then cropped 3000 sq
(Download)
Jun 19, 2014 22:22:33 #
Jun 19, 2014 22:36:42 #
I shoot a pentax 645D and I love my 40 mp's. I like long lenses because I don't like to crop if I don't have to. I don't even like the fact that I have to resize to post here. pentax 645 lenses don't have initials, all their glass is good glass, some just better than others.
Jun 20, 2014 00:26:16 #
I agree with you that white line is between the under side of the arch and the blue sky (in the first photo) and I don't see any way that it could have anything to do with some sort of lime leaching from the stone. It's not on the stone at all. It might have something to do with some sort of color misalignment on our monitors, but other than that I have no explanation. ...... Coot
SonyA580 wrote:
I was referring to the white line around the edge of entire upper portion of the main doorway arch. Some sort of artifact. It is not anything natural.
Jun 20, 2014 01:16:29 #
Lazy Old Coot wrote:
I agree with you that white line is between the under side of the arch and the blue sky (in the first photo) and I don't see any way that it could have anything to do with some sort of lime leaching from the stone. It's not on the stone at all. It might have something to do with some sort of color misalignment on our monitors, but other than that I have no explanation. ...... Coot
The lines cover over two stones. Somebody scraped them there. They are on the stone. You guys are seeing anomalies that aren't there.
Jun 20, 2014 01:29:24 #
One of us must not be looking at the same thing! ..... Coot
SteveR wrote:
The lines cover over two stones. Somebody scraped them there. They are on the stone. You guys are seeing anomalies that aren't there.
Jun 20, 2014 02:06:55 #
I see it now. I don't know how I missed it before.
Could it be the result of p/p work?
Could it be the result of p/p work?
Jun 20, 2014 02:22:33 #
Lazy Old Coot wrote:
I agree with you that white line is between the under side of the arch and the blue sky (in the first photo) and I don't see any way that it could have anything to do with some sort of lime leaching from the stone. It's not on the stone at all. It might have something to do with some sort of color misalignment on our monitors, but other than that I have no explanation. ...... Coot
I'm sure it's fringing. Follow the line and it turns purple.
Jun 20, 2014 14:34:23 #
NYjoe
Loc: US/UK
Chromatic aberration????
Ronbo wrote:
I'm sure it's fringing. Follow the line and it turns purple.
Jun 20, 2014 14:36:35 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
NYjoe wrote:
Chromatic aberration????
I think chromatic aberration would not result in a white line. Sort of by definition, because chromatic aberration is the splitting of white light to the component colors.
Jun 20, 2014 17:54:01 #
amehta wrote:
I think chromatic aberration would not result in a white line. Sort of by definition, because chromatic aberration is the splitting of white light to the component colors.
Could it be the result of changing the sky in post?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.