Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day (March 2008)
- Thread starter Grimace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you shooting RAW? I wonder if this is a problem with raw conversion rather than a lens defect. I've found that with Adobe Camera Raw you have to be fairly careful with sunsets, as the yellow tones can start to look quite ugly if you boost the saturation very much. I think Nikon Capture NX is better for colour, but it is quite slow and fairly awkward to use.
Yes, I'm shooting RAW, and import straight into Aperture. I guess I'm becoming more critical, 'cos, after a year of digital, I'm just about over the amazement of seeing a pic the moment I take it.
I'm also looking at a lot of pix at 100% (for submitting to a picture library), and that can be quite an eye-opener too (re critical focussing, various aberrations, colour-shifts, fringing, etc). I don't see this as a problem so much as a challenge, and I try to take pix that will make best use of the equipment I've got (which is damn good... if not quite the best...), rather than fretting about the occasional 'oddity'.
Digital photography is still quite an adventure for me, and I'm enjoying every minute of the challenge...
"Sea Eyes"
This is quite something. As usual, I love the rich colours which are, IMO, perfect for this scene.
The composition is excellent. Great job!
I noticed that hand in the way too - kind of bothered me - it's actually holding a note card, something those wheat traders record their trades with as they happen.
Had that hand been the focus it would've made a completely different photo. Interesting to think about.
Not a typical subject for me...
Amazing lighting on this.
"Sea Eyes"
WOW
It doesn't have anything to do with the camera body. Chromatic aberration, or other color fringing at areas of high contrast are usually caused by the paths of the different wavelengths of light (different colors) not converging at the same spot on the sensor perfectly - that's about as simple as I can get. It's the way the path of the light is concentrated and how stable it is, the factors which determine color accuracy and image brilliance, as well as sharpness and contrast. The "fix" for this is the use of low dispersion elements in the lens (at least one) which are made from special glass materials which reduce the tendency for glass to disperse or separate light rays into the colors of the rainbow. Different lens manufacturers call this type of element by various names; Low-Dispersion (LD) by Tamron, Extra-Low Dispersion (ED) by Nikon, Ultra-Low-Dispersion (UD) by Canon, Special Low-Dispersion (SLD) by Sigma and Super-Low-Dispersion (SD) by Tokina.
Generally, the less expensive lenses like kit zoom lenses are more susceptible to chromatic aberration, which can be seen on blowing up the picture and examining the details like bare tree branches against a white sky, where you'll often see purple fringing. More expensive glass is just better, and tend to have less of that.
The other thing with lenses used on digital SLRs is the tendencies toward spherical aberration (pincushioning, barrel distortion, light fall-off and softness near the edges.) Since the photo sensor in the camera is perfectly flat, and also reflective, this can cause specular reflection, which causes more flare and ghosting compared to the film surface in film SLRs. Also, light coming from an oblique angle out of the back of the lens causes problems with light fall-off in the corners because of the difficulty the pixel "buckets" have of capturing those oblique rays of light - result... vignetting. The "fix" for this phenomenon is the use of aspherical elements in the lens (one or more) to "straighten" out the light path before it hits the sensor.
These are generic issues with lenses used on dSLRs, and have largely been addressed by all the lens manufacturers, but clearly the better, more expensive lenses do a better job overcoming these design obstacles.
I noticed your photo was at 18mm focal length, you shot a Canon, so I'm going to assume it was the kit lens (18-55mm zoom.) That lens is not the best performer, meaning it will show some chromatic aberration (CA) issues in demanding shots, and the wider angle you use the tougher it gets to keep it in check. Some software programs can do post processing and remove some of the color fringing, but better glass gives you a better image to begin with. Of course, good glass ain't cheap...
Wow thanks for the lesson it was really interesting as well as Doylem's
comments. Actually the picture was taken with a borrowed Sigma 10-20mm and to be honest I would question its quality as I shoot in Raw and sharpened the image quite a bit following a crop. I own a Canon EFS17-55IS and I am now going to put that to use following lots of reports about its quality for all manner of pictures including Landscapes. I was going to purchase a wide angle 10-20 Sigma or 10-22 Canon but will wait until I have used the 17-55IS for a while. Thanks again....at least I don't have to worry about going out and rushing to buy a 5D.
"Sea Eyes"
Great artistry. And good use of subtle HDR treatment to add that special something.
Absolutely agree. The composition and colours are both really successful - all those diagonal lines leading you round the image - it's great.
One handheld RAW // HDR // Shutter: 1/30 // Aperture: f/22.6 // Focal Length: 17 mm // ISO 100
Looks like the perfect opening title frame for the new NBC Drama
"BRENEMAN - DUNGAN, Attorneys at Law"
Thank you!
Thank you!
Thanks a lot Eric. A good comment from the master always makes my day!
Thank you, too!
Some really fantastic images here.
This is one of my latest. Taken at St Andrew's, in Scotland.
HDR From Single RAW Image.
David
This is one of my latest. Taken at St Andrew's, in Scotland.
HDR From Single RAW Image.
David
A candid portrait...:
Camera: Nikon D70s with 18-70mm kit.
davidjearly, love that boat picture!
Camera: Nikon D70s with 18-70mm kit.
davidjearly, love that boat picture!
That shot gives me goose bumps!First time in a while I've posted a "large" photo. Probably just because this one needs more detail than usual.
My submission for the day - a surfer!
L1 + ZD 70-300mm in the rain under an umbrella @ 190mm
1/1300 sec. @ f/6.3, ISO 250
All the old classics that the Cubans have kept going will end up in the US and Cubans will drive new Hondas and Toyotas. Someday. I just want their mojitos.
Waiting for the last ferry..
Last ferry between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, WA had not arrived yet...
Canon Eos A2
Canon 28-105
Fuji Super G 400
Last ferry between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, WA had not arrived yet...
Canon Eos A2
Canon 28-105
Fuji Super G 400
Last ferry between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, WA had not arrived yet...
Canon Eos A2
Canon 28-105
Fuji Super G 400
That's a film SLR, right?
Pardon the 'newb'ishness, but why all the grain?
So the grain is due to the fact that the scanner used to scan the image wasn't able to pick up as much detail as it should - or was it the fact that the print being scanned wasn't very large?
(Unless by 35mm Film scan you meant that the negatives were scanned)
I read on wikipedia that with an excellent lens, high quality 35mm film could capture the equivalent of 22 megapixels per exposure. So theoretically if you get a large print and a high quality scanner, you should be able to transfer your images quite crisply?
(Unless by 35mm Film scan you meant that the negatives were scanned
)I read on wikipedia that with an excellent lens, high quality 35mm film could capture the equivalent of 22 megapixels per exposure. So theoretically if you get a large print and a high quality scanner, you should be able to transfer your images quite crisply?