Looks even better with a trace of red/cyan chromatic abberation
reduced. About "+3" with the Photoshop CS2 Lens Correction filter
improves it. (But I'm still learning about that filter, and I'm sure
others would get it better).
I would like to know whether the reduction would be better if done to a
Raw image in Camera Raw, instead of to a JPEG? (I don't think you've
reached the limits of that camera yet).
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <ayMoe.8453$So7.3344@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
> Showoff
You caught me.
Awesome camera.
But I wouldn't have shelled out for it if I did not believe that I can
use it to the hilt, artistically. I am getting an A2 printer (Epson
4800) to make the most of the wonderful resolution.
I was winning art competion awards as a young man, I am much looking
forward to continuing on that track and taking it further. (Not the
competitions so much as the art.)
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <1118046077.424828.211750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
> Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> [snip]
> > Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
> > http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg > > 2.3MB
>
> Looks even better with a trace of red/cyan chromatic abberation
> reduced. About "+3" with the Photoshop CS2 Lens Correction filter
> improves it. (But I'm still learning about that filter, and I'm sure
> others would get it better).
>
> I would like to know whether the reduction would be better if done to a
> Raw image in Camera Raw, instead of to a JPEG? (I don't think you've
> reached the limits of that camera yet).
Without doubt. I have just ordered PS CS2, so I have not even been able
to work with RAW files yet.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> In article <1118046077.424828.211750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > I would like to know whether the reduction would be better if done to a
> > Raw image in Camera Raw, instead of to a JPEG? (I don't think you've
> > reached the limits of that camera yet).
>
> Without doubt. I have just ordered PS CS2, so I have not even been able
> to work with RAW files yet.
If you have Photoshop CS already, you could shoot Raw, and convert the
NEFs to DNG with the 3.1 DNG Converter, then process the DNGs with CS &
ACR 2.4. (It really does work).
ACR 2.4 has chromatic abberation reduction for working with Raw, but
Photoshop CS doesn't have the Lens Correction filter for working with
post-conversion images. At the moment, when starting with Raw, rather
than scanned images, I prefer to do the chromatic abberation reduction
in ACR rather than Photoshop.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
It seems I am many weeks behind the curve, software wise, for I am not
sure what y'all mean by "chromatic abberation reduction".
Is it reduction of color fringing?
(And did you really see that in the image I posted?)
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> It seems I am many weeks behind the curve, software wise, for I am not
> sure what y'all mean by "chromatic abberation reduction".
> Is it reduction of color fringing?
Yes.
> (And did you really see that in the image I posted?)
Yes. Only a little, hence my "+3", which is a very small correction.
I notice chromatic abberation with digital when using the same lenses I
used with 35mm slides, yet didn't see it when I projected those slides
onto a screen. I think digital is a bit more ruthless where lenses are
concerned.
I normally see it most when there is detail against the sky, such as
the tree on the right of the photo. Does it matter? Perhaps not much,
and perhaps by the time you printed it much of the effect would have
disappeared. But at least one of my lenses gives a bigger effect than
that at wide angle. I shoot only Raw, and often find that a quick visit
to the "Lens" tab is useful.
Perhaps I should never have mentioned it. Now you might start looking
for it everywhere!
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.